Segregated cycle lanes rear their ugly head again...

markhewitt1978

Veronese68 wrote:

As others have said it's not all about us. I would love to see decent segregated cycle lanes so my wife and daughter would cycle more.

Same, my wife has said a couple of times she wouldn't mind cycling, just so long as there were no cars. It's not like she's even willing to try it, she's just not prepared to contemplate cycling on the road, full stop.

We do have some decent ex-railway paths around here, but you still have to get to them which means cycling on moderately busy roads. So I know for sure we'd end up driving the 2 miles to get to the path.

menthel

Veronese68 wrote:

As others have said it's not all about us. I would love to see decent segregated cycle lanes so my wife and daughter would cycle more.

It would be nice but it will also take re-education for drivers so that they know that we don't have to use such facilities if they are available as they simply may not be suitable.

I do actually agree that the idea is a good one if done properly and that re-education occurs around it. However, I have never seen it done well in London personally and that is what worries me- more mealy mouth platitudes and wholly inadequate infrastructure put in.

veronese68

menthel wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As others have said it's not all about us. I would love to see decent segregated cycle lanes so my wife and daughter would cycle more.

It would be nice but it will also take re-education for drivers so that they know that we don't have to use such facilities if they are available as they simply may not be suitable.

I do actually agree that the idea is a good one if done properly and that re-education occurs around it. However, I have never seen it done well in London personally and that is what worries me- more mealy mouth platitudes and wholly inadequate infrastructure put in.

Changing attitudes will take longer unfortunately. Road planners all need shooting and replacing with ones that understand ALL means of transport involved.

markhewitt1978

menthel wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As others have said it's not all about us. I would love to see decent segregated cycle lanes so my wife and daughter would cycle more.

It would be nice but it will also take re-education for drivers so that they know that we don't have to use such facilities if they are available as they simply may not be suitable.

I do actually agree that the idea is a good one if done properly and that re-education occurs around it. However, I have never seen it done well in London personally and that is what worries me- more mealy mouth platitudes and wholly inadequate infrastructure put in.

Of course it can only be considered as a whole, building frontage to building frontage and then design the network in from there. Attempting to fit things around without affecting the existing carriageway width etc is never going to work.

bobinski

CookeeeMonster wrote:

I want segregated paths DONE PROPERLY TO DUTCH STANDARDS because I'm not selfish and want other people (including my children in a few years) to be able to cycle safely...anywhere.

For the millionth time on these forums in the 2 years I've been a member people delibrately wind themselves up over this issue - the cycle campaign groups are not asking for the s**t painted lines or shared use paths we all hate - they are asking for proper lanes - and they can be done to dutch standards and be fast - if the will is there if people put enough pressure on.

No one will be forced off the road except private motor traffic - we need to take space away from cars like during the olympic period for this to work properly...this will lead to less traffic (only those who need to be on the road will be - look at dutch cities and so on) and a better environment for all.

Will take decades so nobody need worry about being forced off the road just yet...even though you wont be anyway.

I agree entirely.
Its really sad that my partner and 2 boys, who all love cycling, cannot feel safe when out on their bikes. Cycling to school for both boys means negotiating the south circular.It has unprotected cycle lanes and traffic hurtling past at 30-50mph. Segregation is the only safe way for them and the 1000's of kids who school locally to do something they enjoy with all the health and other benefits too. There are lots of those small speed bumps on other local roads but they only encourage motorists to drive at an angle and at speed to minimise the inconvenience, of course bringing them closer to cyclists on the left hand of the lane. Cyclists also have to go around them or over them. Segregated cycle lanes and speed bumps to slow motorists are an answer. My youngest cycles on the pavements when i take him to school, I on the road. I have lost count of the number of complaints from pedestrians ( and he is ever so considerate, not too fast, using his bell to alert them to his presence) about him being on the pavement and from drivers about me peddling too slowly on the road as i monitor his progress. In a speed bumped 20mph area! It can turn a fun experience into a pretty miserable one for him, and me.

slowbike

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

As others have said it's not all about us. I would love to see decent segregated cycle lanes so my wife and daughter would cycle more.

Same, my wife has said a couple of times she wouldn't mind cycling, just so long as there were no cars. It's not like she's even willing to try it, she's just not prepared to contemplate cycling on the road, full stop.

Being out of town probably helps - although I'm not sure my wife was ever bothered by cars, when we started riding I tended to take up a defensive position on the road - behind and just outside her backwheel - vehicles are then forced to either knock me off or even if they do pass me a bit close they've given my wife a bit more room.
It's a bit of a tricky one because I'd rather be at the front pacing her rather than make her do all the work.

She's now got a load of miles on the road and is no longer bothered by traffic, although I'll still might take up a defensive position if we're on a tough climb as she'll sometimes wobble about a bit.

I know it's illegal to ride on pavements - but I don't see why ppl who tootle along at snails pace shouldn't ride on the pavement, providing there's the space for it and they ride considerately. That should give the nervous time and opportunity to develop their riding skills and encounter traffic on quieter roads without having to rely on (rubbish) cyclepaths.
I do think cyclepaths have their place - where you get a regular large concentration of cycles - ie in town - then providing them a lane to ride in could help all traffic flow a bit better. Similarly, areas where vehicles are generally fast moving eg dual carriageways, could do with a separate bit of tarmac for pedestrians and cyclists.

notsoblue

I'd like it if councils did something similar to the Dutch idea of a "Woon Erf"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf

The town I grew up in was mostly Woonerf, with the odd main road (50km/h limit). It made for an environment that always felt *really* safe to cycle and walk around for people of all ages.

The general idea is to remove segregated roads and footpaths in residential areas so its just a single, pedestrian friendly surface. Not sure how it would work where I live now though, the streets are full of parked cars...

markhewitt1978

You have to be careful with that sort of thing. As with everything Dutch you can't just lift it out of there and put it here without realising everything else which goes into it. As I understand it with areas such as that, it's only applied such that through motor traffic is always kept to an absolute minimum, nobody is going to be driving down that street if they are not going to a house located on it. Which means traffic is diverted elsewhere.

Putting that sort of thing in a UK estate which is used as a rat run is going to make things worse.

talius

Would love to have german-style segrated cycle paths running alongside all the major A roads in the country - 10 or so metres away, usually behind a bank or hedge, but tracking the roads the whole way.

markhewitt1978

I quite like the NL implementation too. Just a quiet country road, but with a high quality cycle path too http://goo.gl/maps/1XrWf that's just a random example.

veronese68

notsoblue wrote:

I'd like it if councils did something similar to the Dutch idea of a "Woon Erf"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woonerf

The town I grew up in was mostly Woonerf, with the odd main road (50km/h limit). It made for an environment that always felt *really* safe to cycle and walk around for people of all ages.

The general idea is to remove segregated roads and footpaths in residential areas so its just a single, pedestrian friendly surface. Not sure how it would work where I live now though, the streets are full of parked cars...

They have tried to do that on a road near me. It's absolutely lethal. Cars still drive down it as fast as they possibly can. The only time I rode down it with my kids I was hit on the arm by a car wing mirror as he passed me, immediately before stopping behind the other cars waiting at the end of the road. When challenged he told me it was because I was in the middle of the road. I tried to explain I was riding further out so people would leave the kids more room. I was trying to contain myself as I pointed out the signs explaining that it was a 'home zone' and cars didn't have priority. I must confess to losing my rag in front of the kids, but I did resist dragging him out of his car and beating him to within an inch of his life.
Can't work out how to post an image from the new Streetview but the road is this one.

notsoblue

Veronese68 wrote:

They have tried to do that on a road near me. It's absolutely lethal.
<snip>
this one.

Looks a bit piecemeal to be honest. This kind of infrastructure doesn't really work if it ends up being just a narrow rat run with obstacles. Also, strict liability helps... Drivers just don't dick about so much if they know they won't just get off with a slap on the wrist.

markhewitt1978

In the UK for decades motorists have had the de-facto right of way under all circumstances, so it's not surprising many can't even comprehend it when they are told they don't have priority!

As said this only works in areas which already have very low traffic levels, for other areas 'shared use' is not suitable and segregation is the answer.

veronese68

notsoblue wrote:

Veronese68 wrote:

They have tried to do that on a road near me. It's absolutely lethal.
<snip>
this one.

Looks a bit piecemeal to be honest. This kind of infrastructure doesn't really work if it ends up being just a narrow rat run with obstacles. Also, strict liability helps... Drivers just don't dick about so much if they know they won't just get off with a slap on the wrist.

There is a width restriction on the corner half way along. Cars race up to it at full tilt, stop, crawl through it and then race off again. Drivers in this country believe their licences and VED give them rights they just don't have and woe betide anyone that gets in their way or tries to tell them otherwise.
The council have tried to do a similar thing on another road and did a survey on what people thought. There was an 86% response rate with all but 1 saying no to the proposals. Over 100 residents went to the council meeting to argue against it because it is more dangerous than a normal road. What makes it dangerous is the attitude and behaviour of drivers.

notsoblue

Veronese68 wrote:

There is a width restriction on the corner half way along. Cars race up to it at full tilt, stop, crawl through it and then race off again. Drivers in this country believe their licences and VED give them rights they just don't have and woe betide anyone that gets in their way or tries to tell them otherwise.
The council have tried to do a similar thing on another road and did a survey on what people thought. There was an 86% response rate with all but 1 saying no to the proposals. Over 100 residents went to the council meeting to argue against it because it is more dangerous than a normal road. What makes it dangerous is the attitude and behaviour of drivers.

Yeah, you're right. And unfortunately I'm not sure how this will change without credible political leadership on the matter.

slowbike

Veronese68 wrote:

There is a width restriction on the corner half way along. Cars race up to it at full tilt, stop, crawl through it and then race off again.

I'm going to have to admit to doing something similar on a street very much like that ... I had just ridden 30 odd miles with Ugo and my bike was in the back of my 4x4... it wasn't full tilt though - the car doesn't do full tilt!

I hadn't realised that it was a "home zone" or even come across one before - long time since I drove anywhere in London - and I was using it as a cut-through due to slow & heavy traffic on the main route.
In my defence - I wouldn't have cut up or hassled any other user had there been one - iirc the most I encountered was a car going the otherway and we passed without fuss...

veronese68

It will take several generations for it to change. There are young people that think this way, as proved by the Emma Way saga. Whatever they are told they will still feel that they are right. It's like old racists. They know they can't say things in polite company, but they still think like that.
Is that too close to Godwin's Law?

keyser__soze

iPete wrote:

CS8 is a great 'cycle lane' wide, smooth, super fast and not segregated but OK it was easy to implement

Most of the embankment section of CS8 is an example of the width that segregated lanes should be. I'd argue it'd be even better were there a level of separation from the main road for the 90% of regular cyclists and the far greater number of people who would use it if segregation went ahead. The only people it'd probably slightly inconvenience are the types of cyclist you get posting on SCR (myself included) who can hold pace with motor traffic and don't mind moving out into it to overtake other cyclists when it's congested. I've seen a few 'near misses' with cars/taxis along this section weaving into the cycle lane to undertake right-turning vehicles, to cross to parking just after the Shell garage or just to plain undertake slower-moving traffic - some physical segregation would stop this.

talius

Keyser__Soze wrote:

Most of the embankment section of CS8 is an example of the width that segregated lanes should be. I'd argue it'd be even better were there a level of separation from the main road for the 90% of regular cyclists and the far greater number of people who would use it if segregation went ahead. The only people it'd probably slightly inconvenience are the types of cyclist you get posting on SCR (myself included) who can hold pace with motor traffic and don't mind moving out into it to overtake other cyclists when it's congested. I've seen a few 'near misses' with cars/taxis along this section weaving into the cycle lane to undertake right-turning vehicles, to cross to parking just after the Shell garage or just to plain undertake slower-moving traffic - some physical segregation would stop this.

+1 to all that.

roger_merriman

Keyser__Soze wrote:

iPete wrote:

CS8 is a great 'cycle lane' wide, smooth, super fast and not segregated but OK it was easy to implement

Most of the embankment section of CS8 is an example of the width that segregated lanes should be. I'd argue it'd be even better were there a level of separation from the main road for the 90% of regular cyclists and the far greater number of people who would use it if segregation went ahead. The only people it'd probably slightly inconvenience are the types of cyclist you get posting on SCR (myself included) who can hold pace with motor traffic and don't mind moving out into it to overtake other cyclists when it's congested. I've seen a few 'near misses' with cars/taxis along this section weaving into the cycle lane to undertake right-turning vehicles, to cross to parking just after the Shell garage or just to plain undertake slower-moving traffic - some physical segregation would stop this.

Plus when traffic is bad you've got a mile or more of traffic that might do something dumb like say I u turn... One reason I like the Hampton court bike path, I don't have to watch for idiot moves.