Segregated Lanes?

slowbike

Following from Ricks Rants ...

Rick Chasey wrote:

My local cycling lobbying group.

14 years ago I ran into them when giving my school’s take on a bridge where two students on bikes had died that year in road accidents. They resisted all segregation options (much to the delight of the counc since the bill for doing so was going to be high) and argued that cyclists must be treated exactly the same as motor vehicles.

Roll forward 14 years, I’m back in town and the bridge I live right by is going to be shut for some train works. The same lobby group now wants to use this as a trial to pedestrianise the main road in the area. Would be an absolute ball ache for all concerned. Some of the solutions they proposed for the obvious problems their plan posed would make a Brexiter blush.

Absolute idiots.

I appreciate that in congested, urban environments (which I don't have much experience of) - cycle lanes can be a huge benefit for riders - less of a benefit for drivers who still have to assume there may be a cyclist - but ok ..

I also appreciate from the point of view of a parent taking young cyclists out - that cycle paths are a huge benefit - eg I ride Little Slowbike to his pre-school - it's 2 miles up a cycle path - completely separate from the road infrastructure - I can let him ride solo.

I occasionally ride into town - we have a sort of cycling infrastructure - but TBH, it's crap - painted lines on the road - giveway to anything on the road - and I wouldn't take Little Slowbike on any of it - and certainly not bother using it myself as I can get around quicker using the road.

Generally I'm anti-segregation as I feel that being segregated in part leads to an expectation of being segregated and less awareness/acceptance of cyclists on the road in general.

So - being an absolute idiot - why should I be -FOR- segregated cycle paths ?

jgsi

A stress free route to work in town?
Nah, I'd rather have ninja peds, 2 way cycle traffic on 3 foot wide cycle lanes and cursing motorists as you cut and weave and filter.

rick_chasey

So, to be clear, the lobby group was idiotic as two students died on that bridge in a year in car-on-bike accidents as student cyclists had to crest a rail bridge and cross lanes to the right lane (of two) to carry on straight on to school and avoid being left hooked by cars heading left in the left lane.

The pavements were very wide and the suggestion was to shrink one and create a separated bike line up the middle, controlled by lights.

Given fatal accidents were happening, I figured the argument to do nothing because it will lead to cyclists being treated differently was fairly idiotic.

But whatever.

This covers it: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/ve ... t.html?m=1

veronese68

Why should you be in favour of segregated lanes?
Imagine the day little SB is big enough to ride to school on his own and the route is along a busy road. Where would you prefer him to ride? In the road, a poorly marked lane separated with a bit of paint or along a proper segregated lane.

drhaggis

I'm in favour of segregated lanes because:

• I'm tired of riding like an alpha male on the road, positioning aggresively and behaving as if everybody is out to get me
• I'm definitely not riding on the road w/ Haggis Jr. (7 y.o.)
• Nice infrastructure brings more people to cycle, which in turn makes them more aware that cyclists are not infrahumans that deserve what they get.
• cycling relaxedly from A to B, just like walking, is also pleasant. Not everything is going aero, losing weight and gaining watts.

I'm surely forgetting something, but you get the point. Also, from a selfish point of view, I can't see how building infrastructure will make my life worse while cycling on the road.

roger_merriman

I pass quite a bit of cycling infrastructure on my just shy 12 miles to work, first half is the parks, and fairly rubbish painted bike lanes though, one nr Hounslow Heath is good example as it does keep cars off and is decently wide though no room to overtake.

But beyond that I use these for quite a few miles.



Yes I could use the road I do see folks using it, (I work nr Hillingdon Circuit) but they are horrible roads, where as these are frankly my own personal road!

I don’t use all of the infrastructure as intended, the bike doesn’t fit properly though the north gate in Hounslow Heath, so I take a side route and a gate just to the east of it, equally there is a little cycle path that’s acesss is fairly useless. So I ignore it, and equally there seems no legal way to cross the A30 in spite of various bits of paint, coming south.

But it makes it a much nicer commute, not perfect, the rubbish dumped is truly annoying etc, but of the few cyclist I do see, a lot are kids etc. Which I don’t see if for example I have to go into town etc.

wolfsbane2k

Slowbike; we've touched on these discussions on and off for a year or so.
You, me, and many others here are confident riding on the roads.
Others who want to ride, aren't confident, and to be honest, I don't blame them.

The p1ss poor attempt at cycling infrastructure we've current got in the UK, especially around chi and surrounding towns, is frankly, worse than nothing 99% of the time: we've all been shouted at to use the cycle lane that disappears at the next bus stop, or has someone parked in it;

Personally, I love my mostly rural c road route to and from work; I don't want that every to be segregated; it's not worth it for the 3 cars I pass, or am passed by each day. I'd take my wife and kids that route, and I'm sure they'd love it.

But the route in town, to get there, with the paid by the mile taxi drivers, paid by the delivery home delivery network or parcel delivery person, or worse, the parent, late for work, possibly hungover, distracted by kids in the back, that's just pushing their limits, skimming past the f#£king cyclist in the to use ahead who's stopping them making progress to the lights ahead, who might scare the heck out of them. Yes.

Hell, I've broken down in tears twice this year on the side of the road cos some absolute f&¢k nugget has skimmed part me at 60, with no oncoming traffic in the other lane, with me in primary, a punishment pass just for existing on the road.

I've seen a kid on his way to junior school be skimmed by a tipper driver; the kid screamed and went up the kerb after the skimming. I held that kid, a kid I didn't know, close while he called his mum and asked to be picked up and driven to school. I imagined my kid in that position, and a stranger having to do the same for my kid. I don't think that kid has ever made it back on his bike; I look out for him regularly.

Do I really want my wife and kids to put up with that? Do I expect them to put up with that? Do I expect them to choose that over a large comfortable metal box that takes them places, but costs us a little more? No, and I don't blame them.

According to bike life survey,
70% of people want to cycle more.
24% well never cycle.

In a congested, polluted country, we will only ever get people out of cars, and onto bikes, if we remove the biggest danger on our roads; careless drivers; and frankly, we never will. Our roads will always have so someone who's just a sneeze, just a glance at the radio, just a glance at their phone, just a reach back and look to find the kids drinks that fallen down the footwell, just a quick application of lipstick, just a ...... From missing the pedestrian, the cyclist on the road ahead of them, who doesn't have that metal box around them to protect them from "these little accidents" . How many times after a road incident have you heard ' it was only a second' , I slipped'...

Human nature is to make mistakes.

Let's design them out of our road system, and go Dutch.

Design for the people we want on bikes, not the current users.

thistle_

It depends on the quality of the segregated lane really. This evening the segregated sections were mostly useless because they were blocked with parked cars (on road lanes and lanes on the footway). One goes up and down every drop for every driveway - the pump track in the park is flatter!

That photo above looks like a half decent, useful cycle lane. It's also been kept reasonably clean. I'd be happy riding in the traffic if I had to, but would probably choose the cycle lane in that case.

We've recently had some on road cycle lanes removed and replaced with cycle lanes on the footway which is a step backwards IMO. It could have been made to work with a bit of thought, but that's asking too much.

pblakeney

Well designed cycle paths good. Badly designed paths that drivers expect us to stick to regardless, bad. It is a wedge that will bite road cyclists.

jgsi

DrHaggis wrote:

I'm in favour of segregated lanes because:

• I'm tired of riding like an alpha male on the road, positioning aggresively and behaving as if everybody is out to get me
• I'm definitely not riding on the road w/ Haggis Jr. (7 y.o.)
• Nice infrastructure brings more people to cycle, which in turn makes them more aware that cyclists are not infrahumans that deserve what they get.
• cycling relaxedly from A to B, just like walking, is also pleasant. Not everything is going aero, losing weight and gaining watts.

I'm surely forgetting something, but you get the point. Also, from a selfish point of view, I can't see how building infrastructure will make my life worse while cycling on the road.

Well put.
I think we have to get behind Mr Boardman's job of connecting Manchester as a starting point yet again in the UK hinterland to force re think about car alternatives.

The ‘Beelines’ network will be the largest joined-up system of walking and cycling routes in the UK and has been developed with all 10 Greater Manchester local authorities.

Once built, the network will better connect every community in Greater Manchester, benefitting 2.7 million people and making cycling and walking a real alternative to the car.

Wlll it happen?

slowbike

Veronese68 wrote:

Why should you be in favour of segregated lanes?
Imagine the day little SB is big enough to ride to school on his own and the route is along a busy road. Where would you prefer him to ride? In the road, a poorly marked lane separated with a bit of paint or along a proper segregated lane.

Responding to this one for no particular reason.

Yes - I get it - to a point - We're trying to encourage Little Slowbike to ride as much as possible - he loves it, it's better for all of us and brings a normality about cycling. We're lucky enough to have an old rail route as a cycle path to school - can't even be seen from the road. The alternative is up the country A road - noway in hell would he be on that - although this is the one I ride frequently.
There is a cycle path up part of it - we rode it with little slowbike in the trailer before he was 1 - horrendous - narrow, surface broken up and if it's not broken up, it's covered in crap. In one place it's that bad I struggle on my CX (bottom of a dip - sticky mud) - We've not taken Little Slowbike up there much - I'd rather avoid it - not sure why any cyclist would chose to ride it.

Even our dedicated cycle path isn't perfect - the first bit is ok, but it's been extended - and when it's wet/damp (country path - it's often wet) the surface is dicey - I'm considering getting some knobblies for my CX because the grip is crap on the semi-slicks on there at the moment. The path goes the same way as my commute route - but I never use it for commuting because it's significantly slower - by the time I've got myself on/off the path ... There's talk of extending it pretty much all the way to the town where I work - it sounds great - but I can see it'll be a harder ride and when I'm pushed for time I'll want the fastest route.

I suppose, I'm against segregated cycle paths - unless they can be done properly - without treating cyclists as second class citizens. I'd rather the relaxed rules on children riding on the footpath were scrapped completely - allow the kids to ride on the pavement (with due regard for pedestrians). But I can see they're needed/work in certain circumstances.

As for Little Slowbike riding on the road - he's starting to ride more with me on the unclassifieds - on the followme - when i know it's not busy - it's always a risk - but unless more of us ride on the roads, we lose the awareness of being there. Of course, I'd rather he rode with outriders armed to the teeth and no vehicle ever gets closer than the next county - but that's ridiculous - I just want other road users to treat him with respect & give him space - like I want them to do for every other road user out there.

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

So, to be clear, the lobby group was idiotic as two students died on that bridge in a year in car-on-bike accidents as student cyclists had to crest a rail bridge and cross lanes to the right lane (of two) to carry on straight on to school and avoid being left hooked by cars heading left in the left lane.

The pavements were very wide and the suggestion was to shrink one and create a separated bike line up the middle, controlled by lights.

Given fatal accidents were happening, I figured the argument to do nothing because it will lead to cyclists being treated differently was fairly idiotic.

Without knowing the road structure and what is around - I can hardly comment - but if there is space there and issues with those using the road, then clearly the road layout could be improved.
Just because I don't like the idea of "we must always have segregated bike lanes" doesn't mean that we shouldn't have any - eg I don't ride dual carriageways - a path up the side is fine though.

Rick Chasey wrote:

But whatever.

This covers it: http://www.copenhagenize.com/2010/07/ve ... t.html?m=1

Hmm - yes - well, there are extremes everywhere - but that blog dropped in my opinion at para 4 - the question of those that think cyclists should act as vehicles also hit their children? That's the start of the petty insults - what a poorly written blog.

rick_chasey

Aw boo hoo.

I’ve literally seen police mop up pools of blood after a student cyclist’s head got crushed by a left turning lorry - and then saw his parents arrive at the scene 6hrs later, both out of my bedroom window.

You wonder why we don’t have the infrastructure to keep cyclists away from motor traffic.


Here’s the common sense clue: the more often you are segregated from motor vehicles, the fewer chances you have of being hit by one. Very few cyclists die in accidents not related to motor vehicles.

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aw boo hoo.

I’ve literally seen police mop up pools of blood after a student cyclist’s head got crushed by a left turning lorry - and then saw his parents arrive at the scene 6hrs later, both out of my bedroom window.

You wonder why we don’t have the infrastructure to keep cyclists away from motor traffic.


Here’s the common sense clue: the more often you are segregated from motor vehicles, the fewer chances you have of being hit by one. Very few cyclists die in accidents not related to motor vehicles.

Here's another common sense clue - fewer people get murdered when living alone on an isolated island.

Segregated paths are fine - when they're well designed and maintained - but so often they're not, they take convoluted routes, share use with pedestrians who don't travel in reasonably predictable ways, have children/dogs/pushchairs/prams, the surfaces are fine to start with, but then they're not repaired when roots inevitably lift the surface, ironwork litters them - and being the same size as used on the road in significantly smaller road width - means there's less opportunity to miss them - and whilst this isnt an exhaustive list - finally, the paths are not cleared - all sorts of debris is left - uncleared by passing traffic.

I _could_ ride a 95% traffic free route to work - it'd mean going along a fair amount of bridleways - time to ride the 10 miles would about double - now, I like riding my bikes and 10 miles off road isn't completely alien to me - but I don't do the offroad route because of the time it would take - and the condition I'd end up in. Traffic free routes/segregated lanes aren't the be-all to encouraging people on to their bikes - the route has to be sensible AND safe.
Unfortunately, the cost of ripping up all our existing infrastructure and redesigning it is cost prohibitive - so these things need to be done piecemeal - which doesn't usually end up with something ideal.

As WB2k knows - where I live, we have 1 reasonable path - taking the route of a disused railway - most of the other cycle paths are nothing more than a nod to the government requirements - it seems there's little desire to actually get people cycling for transport. But for the most part - drivers are reasonably tolerant of riders on the road - the number of near misses is actually quite small.

kingstongraham

The problem is badly designed cycle lanes. There are segregated cycle lanes that don't get used by anyone who wants to go faster than a pootle because of two main reasons:
1) They too often still bow before the great god car - every side road gets priority with a give way sign on the cycle lane.
2) They look like pavements, so pedestrians use them like pavements.

If I could use good cycle lanes, I would, and Mrs KG would definitely ride more if she didn't have to mix with speeding tonnes of metal.

Boardman is entirely right. Make cycling and walking the natural choice - and not just for "cyclists".

hopkinb

My only experience of segregated lanes is as follows:

1. Within 50 metres of my house there is 400 metres of clearly marked (green tarmac) cycle lane alongside a pedestrian path, which bypasses a large part of Kingston Road, which is often very busy. People walk in it, dogs run on it & it's covered in leaf mulch at the moment, therefore you can't really go quickly. I use it to "warm up". It's a good thing, but it's just 400 metres.

2. The segregated bits of CS7 at Stockwell and Oval to keep cyclists safe at busy junctions. They are good, but can be slow, so I use the road quite a lot. It's only a few hundred metres though, and they all tip you out into a bus lane (another reason I use the road).

3. The segregated lane running from Westminster to Tower Hill. Brilliant outside rush hour. Can be horrendous in rush hour. Choppers everywhere. Traffic light controlled crossover at Blackfriars is a pain.

A really good network of wide segregated lanes for "utility cycling" would be brilliant, but unless I was also "utility cycling" or cycling with my family, I would probably feel frustrated by the relatively slow speeds at which most people ride and want to use the road instead.

bompington

My experience of segregated lanes is:
1. NL: wonderful
2. CPH: different style, also wonderful
3. UK: errrrrrrrr.......

wolfsbane2k

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aw boo hoo.

I’ve literally seen police mop up pools of blood after a student cyclist’s head got crushed by a left turning lorry - and then saw his parents arrive at the scene 6hrs later, both out of my bedroom window.

You wonder why we don’t have the infrastructure to keep cyclists away from motor traffic.


Here’s the common sense clue: the more often you are segregated from motor vehicles, the fewer chances you have of being hit by one. Very few cyclists die in accidents not related to motor vehicles.

Here's another common sense clue - fewer people get murdered when living alone on an isolated island.

Segregated paths are fine - when they're well designed and maintained - but so often they're not, they take convoluted routes, share use with pedestrians who don't travel in reasonably predictable ways, have children/dogs/pushchairs/prams, the surfaces are fine to start with, but then they're not repaired when roots inevitably lift the surface, ironwork litters them - and being the same size as used on the road in significantly smaller road width - means there's less opportunity to miss them - and whilst this isnt an exhaustive list - finally, the paths are not cleared - all sorts of debris is left - uncleared by passing traffic.

I _could_ ride a 95% traffic free route to work - it'd mean going along a fair amount of bridleways - time to ride the 10 miles would about double - now, I like riding my bikes and 10 miles off road isn't completely alien to me - but I don't do the offroad route because of the time it would take - and the condition I'd end up in. Traffic free routes/segregated lanes aren't the be-all to encouraging people on to their bikes - the route has to be sensible AND safe.
Unfortunately, the cost of ripping up all our existing infrastructure and redesigning it is cost prohibitive - so these things need to be done piecemeal - which doesn't usually end up with something ideal.

As WB2k knows - where I live, we have 1 reasonable path - taking the route of a disused railway - most of the other cycle paths are nothing more than a nod to the government requirements - it seems there's little desire to actually get people cycling for transport. But for the most part - drivers are reasonably tolerant of riders on the road - the number of near misses is actually quite small.

The problems that you list are all caused by poor design, no minimum standards, and cyclists being treated as a second rate citizen. This all needs to change. Hopefully with the ripping up of Local Technical Note (LTN) 02/08 and replacement with LTN 01/19 will provide clear standards that must be met before anything can be claimed to be a "cycle lane" - or to claim funding for it.
Many, Many council planning & highways teams know that they need to move people from cars to cycles for sub 5km cycle rides - it's the lack of will power in the councillors in delivering what the teams know should be done because they fear the loud minority - or at least, that's how it currently works in Hampshire, and I believe that the West Sussex Cycle Forum has reported the same issues.

When you might consider the cost of ripping up the current road network and replacing it with cycle lanes as "excessive", it's worth nothing that :
1) Any death on our roads costs a typical £2 million pounds to the taxpayer,
2) So much of the cost of driving is externalised - and costs our country a huge amount for each mile driven, through provision of the roads to start with, through to increased air pollution and resultant NHS admissions, to cost of each and every crash and the demands that makes on our services.

Yet we continue to build roads at massive initial outlay costs, such as that proposed for the Arundel Bypass, or the Chichester Bypass, which cost so much more, or even the M27 Junction 9 development (at £60m+) ; the M27 Smart Motorway at £244m ; for such a little economical benefit ( or indeed, when taking everything into account, economical loss).

Taking a specific local example - The Transforming cities Bid from Hampshire County Council, improving bus routes into the city - The return on Investment for that is targeted to be £1.36 return for £1 in, maybe £2 return.. The Return on investment for cycling inrastrastructure exceeds £2 back for £1 in, and in cities, typically £5 for £1 in - or in places like oxford and Cambridge, 35:1 or 16:1.
Yet the ROI for the M27 smart motorway is expected to be a loss making exercise.

Yet we are STILL building it.

How can we NOT afford to build proper, segregated cycletracks?

It's not a lack of cash, it's a lack of willpower.

wolfsbane2k

Ps - this Is worth a read.
https://www.gov.uk/government/consultat ... ety-review

as is the "Moving the Nation" manifesto from British Cycling, Cycling UK, Living Streets, Sustrans, Ramblers, and the Bicycle Association, :
"Space - Adopt and ensure consistent application of existing ‘best-in-class’ infrastructure design standards to create safe, attractive and inviting places for people of all ages and abilities. "

Walking and cycling routes that don't go directly to places should be replanned, even if it results in longer driving routes - People will take the "easy" option - if driving is easier and quicker than walking somewhere, people will drive it.
If it's quicker to walk it, people will walk it ( after a nudge)
It's one of the major factors in how utrect and other continental cities get such a high cycling share - it's easier, and faster, to cycle places, than to drive.
And because so many more people cycle, leaving their car at home, those that need to drive, can do so, on significantly quieter streets.

rick_chasey

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aw boo hoo.

I’ve literally seen police mop up pools of blood after a student cyclist’s head got crushed by a left turning lorry - and then saw his parents arrive at the scene 6hrs later, both out of my bedroom window.

You wonder why we don’t have the infrastructure to keep cyclists away from motor traffic.


Here’s the common sense clue: the more often you are segregated from motor vehicles, the fewer chances you have of being hit by one. Very few cyclists die in accidents not related to motor vehicles.

Here's another common sense clue - fewer people get murdered when living alone on an isolated island.

Segregated paths are fine - when they're well designed and maintained

Right, so you're in favour of segregation, and just anti-rubbish infrastructure?

Glad we cleared that up.

I mean, your line of argument was already addressed in the link I sent, but yeah.

slowbike

Rick Chasey wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Aw boo hoo.

I’ve literally seen police mop up pools of blood after a student cyclist’s head got crushed by a left turning lorry - and then saw his parents arrive at the scene 6hrs later, both out of my bedroom window.

You wonder why we don’t have the infrastructure to keep cyclists away from motor traffic.


Here’s the common sense clue: the more often you are segregated from motor vehicles, the fewer chances you have of being hit by one. Very few cyclists die in accidents not related to motor vehicles.

Here's another common sense clue - fewer people get murdered when living alone on an isolated island.

Segregated paths are fine - when they're well designed and maintained

Right, so you're in favour of segregation, and just anti-rubbish infrastructure?

Yes & No - right from the start I said I can see it has it's place - but in general, the execution (in the uK) is dreadful - so I think we're better off without most of it.

cjcp

KingstonGraham wrote:

The problem is badly designed cycle lanes. There are segregated cycle lanes that don't get used by anyone who wants to go faster than a pootle because of two main reasons:
1) They too often still bow before the great god car - every side road gets priority with a give way sign on the cycle lane.
2) They look like pavements, so pedestrians use them like pavements.

If I could use good cycle lanes, I would, and Mrs KG would definitely ride more if she didn't have to mix with speeding tonnes of metal.

Boardman is entirely right. Make cycling and walking the natural choice - and not just for "cyclists".

For me, this /\.

There are good and bad examples of segregation in Kingston; in the case of the latter, peds often walk in the bike lane because, to those who don't ride bikes frequently, it doesn't register that it's a bike lane. It could be due to a lack of signage or obvious demarcation. Of course, there are also those who peds who simply don't care whether it's a bike lane or not: there are inevitably those who wander around as if they're waving at the aeroplanes coming into and out of Heathrow. Now, that could be seen as being one of the problems of segregated lanes (they bring you into closer proximity with inattentive peds), but, as we've seen with the CSH along Embankment, that's the problem with peds, not the bike lanes. (It'a a bit like if you took the cars out from RP completely: people would wander along the road.)

Solid metal bollards being placed at the start of the bike lane, but in the middle of the lane of the lane, is another problem which crops up, while some bollards are along the centre line of the lanes, but have very little reflective material on them, which is just terrific in the dark...

Generally, I'm in favour of segregated lanes: it's made getting around and through the town centre a bit better, and maybe, just maybe, they'll bring about a gradual change in the attitude towards bikes, but execution remains poor at times.

rjsterry

As an observation, the introduction of the segregated path that runs north-south over Blackfriars Bridge, has encouraged a lot of people out onto their bikes. But. The apparent safety of having motor vehicles the other side of a raised kerb,, particularly on the bit that runs from the Unilever building up to Ludgate Circus seems to encourage some of the worst riding I see. The removal of motor vehicles seems to make people think that all rules cease to apply and a f*** you attitude is the way to go. I felt safer in traffic - people rode better, maybe because they had to. If segregated paths bring more people on to the roads who haven't learnt to ride safely, that is a rather mixed blessing, because those people will inevitably find themselves in traffic before long. I still see people riding up the inside of HGVs despite 'everybody' knowing that this is extremely dangerous.

On the other hand, the segregated bits around Oval tube/Kennington Park seem to work very well, and the lanes that parallel fast bits of dual carriageway are a no brainer.