Borris & bbc go Dutch....sort of.

markhewitt1978

There's no reason why they couldn't. But we suffer the usual problems of under funding and botched implementation.

We have the grandeous "Great North Cycleway" but in reality it's a mix of narrow cycle lanes alongside the road, which give up just when they are needed most, then being dumped into the bus lane, with double deckers every 3 minutes, then onto the pavement, to have to stop to cross slip roads, then back onto the road, and just as the road narrows and gets busy, it all gives up again. It's a joke.

msmancunia

I often wonder how it would work outside London. Where I live people are so attached to their cars that they don't actually walk anywhere. There's a road I cycle down on my commute (the A663) which is a busy main road into Manchester, but nobody actually walks down it, to the point that there are weeds growing through the cracks in the pavement. I'm sure in lots of places councils could half the size of pavements to make a bigger cycle lane and no pedestrians would be any the wiser.

vermin

It's complicated. Inner London has 3.5M residents, each with a commute of no more than 5 miles. Outer London has another 5M, with similar commutes, perhaps up to 10 miles at a push. Those commutes are all (pretty much) on low speed roads, many with cycle paths. Compare that to the North, where I have a relatively short commute of 16 miles, up a major trunk road with HGVs hurtling up at the national limit. The gf did a more normal 40 miles this morning. It took her an hour and a half, because the public transport up here is so poor. In fact public transport is so utterly shoot that very few people can rely on it as any sort of option. There's no Sainsco Metro on every street corner - you have to make a trip to the shops. Schools are a long way away, and there's one bus per hour. The north is completely wedded to car culture for a good reason - nothing else works. Why walk along down Broadway when you have already had to drive 20 miles to get there?

markhewitt1978

msmancunia wrote:

I often wonder how it would work outside London. Where I live people are so attached to their cars that they don't actually walk anywhere. There's a road I cycle down on my commute (the A663) which is a busy main road into Manchester, but nobody actually walks down it, to the point that there are weeds growing through the cracks in the pavement. I'm sure in lots of places councils could half the size of pavements to make a bigger cycle lane and no pedestrians would be any the wiser.

Yes, they absolutely could. There are many roads I can think of, especially in semi-rural areas, which have a neglected pavement down the side, you'd have to spend actual money to bring it up to standard, but trifling in comparison to most road projects.

A good example http://goo.gl/maps/fTwmJ , plenty space there, path just needs widening a bit. And no the road isn't good for cycling, lost of fast and heavy traffic, I've used it and rarely have I expected death so much...

walkingbootweather

msmancunia wrote:

I'm sure in lots of places councils could half the size of pavements to make a bigger cycle lane and no pedestrians would be any the wiser.

Would be a lot cheaper to just make the pavement dual use. Think we've been over this a few times before, but there are places and occasions when riding on the pavement makes sense, especially when there are no pedestrians on it.

markhewitt1978

If there's sufficient space then segregated makes sense http://goo.gl/maps/LXaxt such that cyclists and pedestrians know where they need to be.

rick_chasey

vermin wrote:

It's complicated. Inner London has 3.5M residents, each with a commute of no more than 5 miles. Outer London has another 5M, with similar commutes, perhaps up to 10 miles at a push. Those commutes are all (pretty much) on low speed roads, many with cycle paths. Compare that to the North, where I have a relatively short commute of 16 miles, up a major trunk road with HGVs hurtling up at the national limit. The gf did a more normal 40 miles this morning. It took her an hour and a half, because the public transport up here is so poor. In fact public transport is so utterly shoot that very few people can rely on it as any sort of option. There's no Sainsco Metro on every street corner - you have to make a trip to the shops. Schools are a long way away, and there's one bus per hour. The north is completely wedded to car culture for a good reason - nothing else works. Why walk along down Broadway when you have already had to drive 20 miles to get there?

*shrugs* - I was brought up in Cambridge. A 15min bike ride is easily 40 min in the car.

I bet most journeys people do in the car are less then 7km.

msmancunia

vermin wrote:

It's complicated. Inner London has 3.5M residents, each with a commute of no more than 5 miles. Outer London has another 5M, with similar commutes, perhaps up to 10 miles at a push. Those commutes are all (pretty much) on low speed roads, many with cycle paths. Compare that to the North, where I have a relatively short commute of 16 miles, up a major trunk road with HGVs hurtling up at the national limit. The gf did a more normal 40 miles this morning. It took her an hour and a half, because the public transport up here is so poor. In fact public transport is so utterly shoot that very few people can rely on it as any sort of option. There's no Sainsco Metro on every street corner - you have to make a trip to the shops. Schools are a long way away, and there's one bus per hour. The north is completely wedded to car culture for a good reason - nothing else works. Why walk along down Broadway when you have already had to drive 20 miles to get there?

Good points from both Vermin and Mark. On the plus side, the shockingly bad public transport in North Manchester got me back on a bike for the first time in ten years when I moved back from London so it's had one bonus for me!

And it's not just the lack of frequency, it's just bad planning. I can drive from my house to work at the velodrome in 20 mins. I can cycle in 24 mins (as of last night's PB home!). I could probably walk it in an hour and three quarters. It would take me nearly two hours by public transport because the connections are just so stupid and poorly thought out.

walkingbootweather

markhewitt1978 wrote:

If there's sufficient space then segregated makes sense http://goo.gl/maps/LXaxt such that cyclists and pedestrians know where they need to be.

I know that stretch very well. In practice there are few pedestrians but those that are don't seem to understand which side they should be on. I am likely to have to pass them on the 'pedestrian side' as the 'cyclist side'. Why bother going to the trouble and expense of 2 different surfaces and a nice white line down the middle if most people aren't going to take any notice?

rick_chasey

markhewitt1978 wrote:

If there's sufficient space then segregated makes sense http://goo.gl/maps/LXaxt such that cyclists and pedestrians know where they need to be.

Uh oh. You said the 's' word.

The vehicular cyclists will be on their way....;-)

vermin

Anyway, who cares if Borris has gone Dutch, except perhaps the residents ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Borris,_County_Carlow

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

markhewitt1978 wrote:

If there's sufficient space then segregated makes sense http://goo.gl/maps/LXaxt such that cyclists and pedestrians know where they need to be.

Uh oh. You said the 's' word.

The vehicular cyclists will be on their way....;-)

I'm only a vehicular cyclist out of necessity. If you can provide segregated facilities that are as quick (in terms of travel time and pace) and provide options in terms of routes then I'll happily use them. What I wouldn't like to see is me riding to London by road and then finding my journey speed and pace reduced, especially as my commute is my exercise.

anonymousblackfg

I've been a cycle commuter in Bristol as well and believe there is a need, Bristol for one thing has the highest car ownership in the country and is pretty much in perminent grid lock. Though I rarely cycle there since them becoming a test bed for cycling or George Fergesson coming in to office the infrastructure is still pretty poor. There is a need and it can be practical.

As for a comparrison I am unsure what is published on Exeters infrastructure to get more kids to cycle to school or Brighton as a City given it's green council?

cyclingprop

I got told the light was red yesterday, as I pulled up into the ASL by trafalgar square. I pointed at the cycle on the floor and said, I'm behind the line. Fat ped continued to bimble through the ASL rather than use the bloody crossing.

This is why segregation wont work.

anonymousblackfg

Anyone able to access the times story today written by our new transport minister, Patrick McLoughlin on this subject?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 840106.ece

Sadly it's not on the free cycling section.

asprilla

The Times wrote:

The Government’s £94 million will make people feel more confident getting on their bikes
Let me begin with a confession. I support cycling. I’m delighted that today an extra £148 million is being invested in safer cycling. I want to do more. But I don’t — yet — cycle much myself.
Perhaps it is a generational thing. As a child in Staffordshire I did a paper round by bike, but when I began work as a miner at a local pit, I walked or drove and the habit has stuck.
My excuse is that there was a steep hill between home and work and what would have been easy one way would have been exhausting the other. The deeper reason, though, is that cycling was something that didn’t seem to be encouraged by planners, who designed roads for cars, not other users. At the time it almost — dare I say it — felt part of the past, not the future.
And yet I was wrong and the cyclists were right and I am glad that attitudes have changed. I should have joined them long ago. Cycling is exploding in popularity: in towns, for commuters, in sport, for Olympic medals and everywhere as something that people just like doing.
I’m writing this in North Yorkshire, where I’ve been talking to national park planners who are getting ready to start next year’s Tour de France (with added Angleterre) on July 5. Tens of thousands are expected to watch. The Dales bed and breakfasts are filling up already.
Those racing bikes will be heading south, towards other dales in Derbyshire, closer to my home and my parliamentary constituency. Here, too, cycling is everywhere. Even I have been lured to pedal my way along the Monsal Trail, through beautiful limestone country and a series of old rail tunnels that have just been lit, paved and opened for anyone with the get-up-and-go to puff their way through on foot or by bike.
That’s the thing about cycling. You don’t need expensive equipment (unless you want it). You don’t have to dress up in bright Lycra (although Derbyshire’s lanes are full this summer of people who do). It’s a way to get to work; it’s a way to have fun and get fit. And today, with local authorities and national parks alongside, we’re putting the biggest cash injection ever into cycling schemes in many parts of England.
The funding, which includes £94 million from the Department for Transport, will be divided between eight cities and four national parks. It will help to deliver a wide range of schemes across England, including a new radial cycle network for Manchester, a 14-mile segregated superhighway between Leeds and Bradford, and 71 miles of new cycle routes in Birmingham.
I’m proud of this, but I know too that it’s just a start. The Times has campaigned persuasively and firmly not just for better funding for cycle schemes like these, but for a cultural change that makes cycling much more part of daily life. Currently only 2 per cent of journeys in the UK are made by bicycle, compared with almost a third in the Netherlands. This is despite the fact that 43 per cent of us own, or have access to, a bike.
I know the fears — and also sadly sometimes the reality — about cycle safety. The fact that many millions make journeys without incident does not excuse us from doing far more to protect those who are not always properly protected today.
In making that point I’m not excusing all cyclists and blaming all motorists. Responsibility for safety on the road runs both ways, which is why good training in schools matters so much; and we are funding that, too.
It is only fair that when we design road improvements, we make sure that cyclists are looked after. So from now on councils will be expected to integrate cycling lanes at design stage, and we will cut red tape that often prevents the delivery of cycle-friendly roads. New trunk road projects such as junction improvements or road-widening will be cycle-proofed so they can be navigated confidently by the average rider.
There are other things we can do too, such as install Trixi mirrors at junctions so truck drivers can see cyclists. But most of all, we need to get people confident about cycling. The more people who get on their bike, the more it becomes part of life, and drivers watch out for cyclists and cyclists for drivers.
It’s incredible when you think about how far we’ve come: British cycling triumphs at the Olympics; British winners of the Tour de France twice in a row; and people everywhere pumping up their tyres and getting out on their bikes. This Government backs them; it backs The Times’ campaign for Cities Fit for Cycling and today it’s proving that through action. It’s a start, I know, not the finish line. But it’s real progress that will make an important, practical difference for cyclists everywhere.
Patrick McLoughlin is Secretary of State for Transport

walkingbootweather

anonymousblackfg wrote:

Anyone able to access the times story today written by our new transport minister, Patrick McLoughlin on this subject?

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/c ... 840106.ece

Sadly it's not on the free cycling section.

Is this the same Patrick McLoughlin that says cyclists must "do their bit" on road safety?

At least he can ride a bike sort of....



(second from the right)

markhewitt1978

So from now on councils will be expected to integrate cycling lanes at design stage, and we will cut red tape that often prevents the delivery of cycle-friendly roads. New trunk road projects such as junction improvements or road-widening will be cycle-proofed so they can be navigated confidently by the average rider.

Of all the things about this announcement, I think this is the most important point and I hope it applies to the whole of the UK, and not just the target areas.

BTW, what's the red tape he speaks of?

asprilla

markhewitt1978 wrote:

So from now on councils will be expected to integrate cycling lanes at design stage, and we will cut red tape that often prevents the delivery of cycle-friendly roads. New trunk road projects such as junction improvements or road-widening will be cycle-proofed so they can be navigated confidently by the average rider.

Of all the things about this announcement, I think this is the most important point and I hope it applies to the whole of the UK, and not just the target areas.

BTW, what's the red tape he speaks of?

'Elf n' safety, innit?

I'm happy with the money and that they want to ensure we are include; I just hope they don't make a balls of it actually involve people who know about cycling infrastructure (so not anyone in Kingston or Surrey then) otherwise we'll get a load of 'We spent all this money on tracks for you and you ain't even using them!' gubbins.

markhewitt1978

Asprilla wrote:

'Elf n' safety, innit?

Is it? I expected it would be more along the lines of having to provide certain capacity, sightlines etc specifically for car use, so despite there being enough space for cycle lanes/paths they aren't put in?

asprilla

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

'Elf n' safety, innit?

Is it? I expected it would be more along the lines of having to provide certain capacity, sightlines etc specifically for car use, so despite there being enough space for cycle lanes/paths they aren't put in?

No, I very much doubt it is. It's probably something to do with simplifying the planning process.

bushu

The north could go dutch in future but, a overhaul to the current mess of a system will always be shot down. Thankfully the total lack of useful public transport is pushing more & more people to cycle the 5 miles or so to work, the fact the prices rise regularly and services aren't even turning up, so you can get to work & pay for this privilege. Then to that it's once an hour, connecting to another service you've probably just missed and personally for me it's yet another service by another provider my ticket isn't valid for :? I live 5 miles away from work :!:

Since I decided to commute on my old dj bike a few years ago, i rarely saw one cyclist. Today there are 7 at my workplace alone, suppose the more cyclist the next generation see flying past the bus/traffic queues the more voices we will have in future to change things.

York & Leeds City centres are mostly heavily pedestrianised and would struggle to squeeze by the buses though many already do find a way through, if the routes into the cities were improved greatly i.e. dont leave the cycle lane in the lurch and leave people struggling with lorries forcing their way through the rush hour.
O i've gone on a bit, that is all

bushu

but I suppose i could cycle to the train station 2 miles away, train to city, train to workplace station
then cycle a mile downhill to work

I've driven many times too but with all the speed camera's, humps and buses in the bloody way
I can't beat my 15 mins commute and the ass is quite toned, which is what the ladies like no :?

bails87

navigated confidently by the average rider.

Isn't this a bit....wrong?

It should be built so that it can be "navigated confidently " by a child on their way to school, or a new rider who just wants to get to the cornershop to buy a pint of milk.

Building stuff that suits the people who are currently riding (and actually excluding the less confident people who currently ride!) means we get more of the same rubbish, doesn't it?

roger_merriman

In Kingston they have been digging up the Ped/Cycle crossing across Wood street (the one way system) from side of Bentals to small railway bridge cut though to Sainsburys. It's the route plenty of commuters and mamils training use.

now coming from Sainsburys you have the counter flow as per normal until a short steep ramp, turning 90 onto the pavement, it's not a movement that flows, since your asked to do a tight turn on a short steep ramp... be a royal pain on any more cumbersome bike such one that's been to Sainsburys or with a trailer or tag along etc.

This is new stuff and it's fairly rubbish, this is why people do get put off cycle paths etc. I don't think most folks are ideological driven about cycle paths, they go with the ones that work, at the moment cycle paths are hit and miss.

asprilla

roger merriman wrote:

In Kingston they have been digging up the Ped/Cycle crossing across Wood street (the one way system) from side of Bentals to small railway bridge cut though to Sainsburys. It's the route plenty of commuters and mamils training use.

now coming from Sainsburys you have the counter flow as per normal until a short steep ramp, turning 90 onto the pavement, it's not a movement that flows, since your asked to do a tight turn on a short steep ramp... be a royal pain on any more cumbersome bike such one that's been to Sainsburys or with a trailer or tag along etc.

This is new stuff and it's fairly rubbish, this is why people do get put off cycle paths etc. I don't think most folks are ideological driven about cycle paths, they go with the ones that work, at the moment cycle paths are hit and miss.

Not only that, but at the exact spot you are expected to turn left there are three metal drains in the cycle path. They have also left a small kerb in place so you can't drift up you have to turn into it. I also like the fact they still haven't fixed the most dangerous part of that crossing; traffic back up from the bridge is only told to stop at the pedestrian crossing, not at the cycle crossing.

You'd never guess that Kingston doesn't have a cycling officer would you?

markhewitt1978

bails87 wrote:

It should be built so that it can be "navigated confidently " by a child on their way to school, or a new rider who just wants to get to the cornershop to buy a pint of milk.

Building stuff that suits the people who are currently riding (and actually excluding the less confident people who currently ride!) means we get more of the same rubbish, doesn't it?

Ideally speaking, yes. But it's the same problem you have with all of this. Having the facility be able to be used by a child going to school on their own means a bigger design with more land take, more disruption to traffic flow, means it isn't going to get built vs something the average rider can use.

What is the definition of average anyway? Strava says I'm pretty average (lets be honest it says I'm below average ) but I guess the average rider isn't on Strava?

bails87

What is the definition of average anyway? Strava says I'm pretty average (lets be honest it says I'm below average ) but I guess the average rider isn't on Strava?

Look at the number of cyclists on a route. Then add the new infrastructure. If there isn't a 50% decrease in the number of people cycling then you've succeeded because the average/median rider is still using it.

Great success!!!

Oh, and

, more disruption to traffic flow

Boo-f*&king-hoo*. Motor traffic flow is the only thing that matters at the moment. Not pedestrians, not cyclists. They are 'disrupted' at virtually every single junction (maybe not in some bits of London, but out here in the provinces) for the convenience of motorists. It's about time things were evened back up.


Edit: *I know you're not arguing against it, merely pointing out that this will be used as an argument by the 'antis', but it relies on the premise that everyone is treated equally to start with. When I'm in my car, my priority, safety and convenience is designed in to every bit of the road and pavement. When I'm on my bike or on foot, the vast majority of the space is designed to keep me in my place and allow people in cars to keep moving as quickly as possible.

Take this junction as an example: One of the busiest cycle routes (yes, that narrow pavement is a shared use path) in and out of the city. But where it crosses 5 lanes of a 40mph dual carriageway there isn't even a crossing phase. http://goo.gl/maps/v4ObL

markhewitt1978

bails87 wrote:

Boo-f###ing-hoo. Motor traffic flow is the only thing that matters at the moment. Not pedestrians, not cyclists. They are 'disrupted' at virtually every single junction (maybe not in some bits of London, but out here in the provinces) for the convenience of motorists. It's about time things were evened back up.

Well that's the point; on the CTC forum one of the mods works with LA's to put in the paths and the like. And they are basically told by the council that if there is to be anything which will change the traffic flow then it has to be modeled on the computer simulation and would cost something ridiculous like £50,000, which was basically the entire budget for the project, and that's without actually building anything.

Until we get around that sort of nonsense we're going nowhere.

roger_merriman

Asprilla wrote:

roger merriman wrote:

In Kingston they have been digging up the Ped/Cycle crossing across Wood street (the one way system) from side of Bentals to small railway bridge cut though to Sainsburys. It's the route plenty of commuters and mamils training use.

now coming from Sainsburys you have the counter flow as per normal until a short steep ramp, turning 90 onto the pavement, it's not a movement that flows, since your asked to do a tight turn on a short steep ramp... be a royal pain on any more cumbersome bike such one that's been to Sainsburys or with a trailer or tag along etc.

This is new stuff and it's fairly rubbish, this is why people do get put off cycle paths etc. I don't think most folks are ideological driven about cycle paths, they go with the ones that work, at the moment cycle paths are hit and miss.

Not only that, but at the exact spot you are expected to turn left there are three metal drains in the cycle path. They have also left a small kerb in place so you can't drift up you have to turn into it. I also like the fact they still haven't fixed the most dangerous part of that crossing; traffic back up from the bridge is only told to stop at the pedestrian crossing, not at the cycle crossing.

You'd never guess that Kingston doesn't have a cycling officer would you?

To be fair some of the proposals in their cycling vision do look good but, the devil is in the detail or rather how it's implemented http://www.kingston.gov.uk/cycling