Cycling UK Forum

I'm assuming that there is not a defined standard for surfacing of cycle paths?

Any loose surface will be easily subjected to degradation - either from the weather, use or vandalism. As children we would frequently dig pits in an area of this type of material. Ironically we used the area mostly for riding our bikes - great surface for big skids...

So any surface which could be expected to have long life would have a bound surface. Most typically bitumen macadam, asphalt or concrete. Such surfacing requires a more substantial foundation. Bitumen macadam and asphalt are somewhat flexible whereas concrete is not. Evidence in the UK indicates that the combined thickness of the surfacing and foundation layers should be in the order of 450mm in order for the ground under the foundation to be free of frost movement in cold weather. This may be thinner if the underlying soil is not frost susceptible. Typically bituminous surfaced foot paths are laid on a foundation of 100 - 150mm of non-frost susceptible crushed rock and have bituminous layers of 35 - 60mm. It is thus implicit that foot paths are expected to degrade with time. Clearly such degradation will be much slower than loose surfaces. Councils traditionally have standards of acceptance based on what works in their areas to give durable surfacing for foot paths.

Cycle paths are "new" and are probably not covered by the council standards. This gives the opportunity for supposed cycle provision to be supplied on the cheap. Provision of a loose laid surface will cost a fraction of that needed to lay a council standard foot path. A positive is that such provision may give rise to a defined use which may be used as evidence to support a later upgrade of the facility. The counter arguement is of course that if it's used, it doesn't need upgrading... What must be remembered is that many of these facilities would not be built if the requirement for a properly designed bound surface was present. I will not comment as to if this is a good or bad thing.

I have no direct experience of loose laid cycle paths. Those I use are macadam surfaced, old, bumpy (from frost action) and have a surface which is now beginning to disintegrate. I use these only because they serve my purposes better than the adjacent road. I'm not expecting the council to improve them any time soon.

thirdcrank wrote:...Logic would suggest to me that the reduction in motor vehicle use should lead to a reduction in casualties...

Me too. I did hear a discussion on Radio 4 concerning this where they suggested that the reduction in cars may be allowing greater speed

Thoughts that come to my mind:

Has the bike been crashed - Your reactions to riding it do seem to be quite extreme...

Rather than too big, I'd guess too small. Try riding on the tops - your hands may be lower than the MTB and the reach a bit longer, but not uncomfortably so.

As to changing gear, On my old bike the shifters slowly worked their way down the tube due to a slightly loose bolt. I didn't notice for quite some time . If your shifters are attached to a band then there is probably scope for moving them nearer the head tube and making them easier to reach - cables permitting of course.

I can't think why you would want to be changing gear and braking at the same time.

As to the heads down riding position - If you have a helmet, make sure there isn't a peak interfering with forward vision. Try not to look so far up the road! The view from a racing style bike is poor - you need to see sufficently far ahead to not ride into things and to anticipate what you are doing - no further!

Also - I don't know your weight - I have found my thighs sometimes making contact with my stomach. I good sign to loose weight but it's also worth trying to adjust the saddle position - especially front to back...

dave holladay wrote:Does no-one do serious risk analysis any more?

Any more? I'm fairly certain that risk analysis has never been a serious proposition in road design. What is lacking in much current road design is flexibility for the designer to adopt the "right" solution rather than the solution proscribed by the rules. Of course leaving it up to the designer implies that the designer has the both the experience and the desire to produce a good design. This is a position not accepted by many on this forum.

Road paint specifications did (and presumably still do) require the paint to have a particular surface texture to reduce "slipperyness". Given that road markings are slipery ther is clearly grounds for promoting tighter specification. Likewise the thickness of road paint is often excessive for reasons I can't fathom - thicker paint costs the contractor money.

cjchambers wrote:Were there really signs before directing people into Salisbury via Laverstock and down Milford Hill rather than the A30?!

- No Bourne Avenue to St. Marks roundabout. The sign at St Marks used to indicate a route to the Winterbournes - So an alternative route to the A30. To be honest, from St. Marks, the A30 even when normally busy is probably a better road for cars. The driving schools used to use Laverstock Churchfields and Harnham quite extensively - I learnt to drive round these areas.

Even if Laverstock is now differently signed, there is quite a large legitimate catchment for that road - especially with the schools. Much of this traffic is likely to be limited to rush hour. As a youf we would do a longish loop from St Marks, through Laverstock, Ford, Stratford and then back though Bishopdown. I'd imagine most of those roads would still be reasonable for cycling.

Also do try the Woodford valley. I was brought up in Amesbury rather than Salisbury and the Woodfords were my main cycle route - Either though to Salisbury or to Wilton. It's a good area for cycling - undulating rather than hilly. Personally, I struggle with real hills...

I know Laverstock quite well, but don't remember that cycle lane. I'm guessing it's quite new. It's not fair to call the road a rat run - It is a properly signed route in and out of Salisbury. I do concede that there are other available routes. There are significant and badly implimented traffic calming measures starting shortly after the bend in the photo. I would have thought they would be of a greater danger to cyclists than this cycle lane.

It's also worth remembering that the busy time on this road is probably of short duration and that the cycle lanes would not be particularly hazardous at other times.

Many cyclists in that area are presumably school children - they may - just possibly - get better treatment form the school mums...

This is a better version of the same article...

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNe ... 2X20091014

Not sure if this is the right board. This is an American news article claiming an increase in cyclist injuries. It doesn't give any indication of the increase in cycling numbers. If tried a google search for related info but without success. I'd be interested in any "support" information - or simply your opinions!

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/200 ... ries_N.htm

thirdcrank wrote:...IMO the reason the cycle lane is between two lanes of motor traffic is because the nearside lane is dedicated to the left turn...

If I recall this juction layout properly - you are correct - the left turn lane joins Smallbrook Queensway at a traffic light controlled junction and is physically speparated from straight-on traffic in the underpass beneath the building. I used to cycle through this area quite regularly but not this specific road.

thirdcrank wrote:...What surprises me is the apparent difference in width between the with-flow cycle lane and the contraflow cycle track...

I'd guess that the designer was trying to stop cars from using the cycle lane as just another lane. It would seem to be plenty wide enough - maybe the contraflow should be narrower!

I don't recall Hurst Street as being particularly busy and the traffic would (generally) be slow moving. Most of the problems here would be at rush hour when the whole area would experience gridlock...

EdinburghFixed wrote:The point about 20mph zones being a bit like bike helmets is well made. It's blindingly obvious that helmets must save lives, until you look at population level data and find that the same number of people are being killed whether the helmet wearing rate is 80% or 8%. I would be amazed if there is a clear consensus, without cherry picking, on the effects of 20mph zones either.

I've just done a google search for some statistical data on the safety of 20mph zones - without success. Unless my search terms were particularly daft, this is surprising as 20mph zones have been around for many years in trial form.

A 20mph zone, even if it can be shown to reduce injuries, could not be expected to reduce them to zero. If our target is zero, then we need to see 20mph as an interim measure quickly followed by 15, 10, 5 and finally 0mph!

The alternative is to accept that there is a cost in human life for our current lifestyles. I'm guessing that most people would accept the possibility of the death of a few others in order to not have to adapt to the change in circumstances. Likewise I suspect that wide adoption of 20mph zones would not take long to be seen as the "norm".

Personally I see little problem with 20mph on estate roads, and imagine that this make those areas a nicer environment to live in. That sounds like a good enough reason, even if we still end up mowing down the kiddies...

I think assumption of guilt would be fine. Make it so that it is for the motorist to demonstrate why they are not guilty, rather than for the "victim" to show why they are...

Using insurance to cover this degrades the matter to civil rather than criminal law (not sure if degrade is the right word...)

Tom Richardson wrote:...and then you can't give it up because you find you've moved too far from the shops and where you work and at the same time become too unhealthy through lack of excercise to get there by any other means.

Off topic, but absolutely true!

[XAP]Bob wrote:No - it's banning cars/busses/lorries.

Or more practically having vehicular traffic respect other road users. It isn't difficult to cycle around in traffic, unless there are idiots behind the wheels of their vehicles.
In London the average vehicle speed is ~9mph (or was relatively recently) - that's not much different from most cyclists. Any motorist causing a collision with a cyclist should be charged with driving without due care and attention (NB - Causing, not involved in)

In London there should be enough CCTV about to cover most incidents.

At serious risk of upsetting even more people - Having vehicular traffic respect other road users, must be seen as an aspiration rather than an achievable goal.

Adoption of European type rules where drivers are assumed guilty in collisions with cyclists may be of benefit and would probably be quite easy to achieve. Best of all, it's a "no-brainer" as the police and CPS would have clear guidance on what to do.

How much CCTV is there in London? Can the police access this easily? Do they?

iandriver wrote:Perhaps something like a laptop pannier bag like this:
http://www.halfords.com/webapp/wcs/stor ... yId_165643

I have one of those. Quality is not good. I carry a laptop, accessories and a bundle of papers - that fills it up. Has a roll up flap on the back that covers to hooks. The zip on mine is now broken. The hooks don't look that strong and I'm beginning to not trust them, even though they don't show any signs of damage. I have a bungee which now goes through the top handle.

I try not to cycle in heavy rain so can't vouch for the water excluding properties. I guess you get what you pay for - or in my case had bought for me!

thirdcrank wrote:On the subject of railings - IMO they are yesterday's discredited solution, along with pedestrian footbridges, squalid subways and 'pedestrian routes' which take people on foot the long way round to maximise the capacity for motor traffic.

For them to be yesterday's solution, discredited or otherwise, there must be a today's solution? Are you perhaps promoting the use of unsigned and unsegregated areas as have been tried in various places? Even if you put aside all considerations of the effect of traffic stagnation which would be caused, you would still be left with motor vehicles, cyclists and pedestrians having to interface. It is inevitable that in this environment the motor vehicle would still be the greatest danger to others and the best protected.

thirdcrank wrote:Unfortunately, those nuisance vulnerable road users cause a real problem by getting hurt and even getting killed in collisions, instead of just folding over and springing back up, or harmlessly snapping off, like forgiving street furniture. (Sometimes they even have the temerity to damage "the victim's" car in the collision and occasionally have the bad grace to break the windscreen, terrifying the "victim" out of their wits.)

This is unusually emotive compared to your normal postings - forgive me if I've touched a raw nerve. As I see it a fatality is a fatality regardless of whether the death is to driver or pedestrian. I'd argue that road design is actually skewed heavily towards the safety of pedestrians. This is as it should be - pedestrians are very much more vulnerable. Cyclists did get a raw deal by virtue of being neither fish nor foul. This is improving but is far from good enough. Pro-cycling lobby groups exist the length and breadth of the country and are consulted as part of the normal road approval system. It would be rare for their views to not be taken in to account by the design. Note there is a difference between having your views taken in to accound and getting everything you asked for! All road design is a compromise between the various interested parties and the physical possibilities of the available site.

It will be of little surprise to you that I have been involved in road design. I no longer work in that field but do not recall any highway engineers I met who were not fully aware of the potential dangers inherent in their jobs. Highway engineering is also subject to a very high degree of scrutiny - roads are very public!

That is not to say that all roads are perfect - far from it. My main gripe is the implied assumption that any poor design is the fault of careless, ignorant and detached highway engineers. I can't say these people don't exist but I can say I don't recall meeting any of them.