CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

mattsccm
Posts: 5101
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by mattsccm »

Not so sure its just the motor lobby but popular opinion.
We have to remember that in this day and age we are , apparently, entitled to what ever we want. Therefore if millions of car users want something then thats what will happen. They no more want cycle lanes than I want house building on agricultural land.
PH
Posts: 13106
Joined: 21 Jan 2007, 12:31am
Location: Derby
Contact:

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by PH »

The legal challenge isn't about whether this was or wasn't a good cycle lane, but whether the council fulfilled it's obligation to consider all users. It is IMO something worth establishing.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by mjr »

Syd wrote: 18 Jun 2021, 7:46pm They restrict cyclists to a very narrow strip of tarmac,
There is not normally any such restriction. Cyclists may use all lanes. The photos of that one look like it is just posts every so often, which don't prevent changing lanes (although you do need to take slightly more care).
[...] in addition they are too narrow to allow a faster cyclist to pass a slower one in lane.
Then change lanes to overtake.

Fair point that they should be at least wide enough for sweepers (even mini-sweepers) to get along, though.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Syd
Posts: 1230
Joined: 23 Sep 2018, 2:27pm

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by Syd »

mjr wrote:
Syd wrote: 18 Jun 2021, 7:46pm They restrict cyclists to a very narrow strip of tarmac,
There is not normally any such restriction. Cyclists may use all lanes. The photos of that one look like it is just posts every so often, which don't prevent changing lanes (although you do need to take slightly more care).
[...] in addition they are too narrow to allow a faster cyclist to pass a slower one in lane.
Then change lanes to overtake.

Fair point that they should be at least wide enough for sweepers (even mini-sweepers) to get along, though.
Whilst technically correct, the spacing of the posts (certainly around here) are such that it makes moving out of, and back into, the lane hazardous without coming to an almost complete stop.

Due to it not being able to be cleared by road sweepers, the interface cycle lane and the usual traffic lane is strewn with loose stones and gravel adding to the issue.

There is also an increase in incidents of road rage where drivers, frustrated at losing a meter or so from their precious road, take umbrage when a cyclist decides not to use it.

There is one climb, close to where I work, where they have added temporary raised kerbstones between the posts (cited as discouraging vehicle intrusion) which keeps cyclists even more penned in. This results in a long string of cyclists all going at the pace of the slowest at the front.

I have changed my commute route to avoid now roads.
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by merseymouth »

Hi all, especially Mattccm, My point about the power of the motor lobby is definitely valid.
Alongside the chicanery against sensible cycle provision one must add in the situation regarding pedestrians!
One specific point is that the timings and indeed provision of pedestrian crossings. The prime objective of the people setting the timing of light controlled crossings is to maximise traffic flow, make sure that hoofers don't impede motor traffic!
Even matters such as the correct alignment of the control button boxes is shoddily treated! For the visually impaired such matters can genuinely be a matter of life or death.
I have spoken to folk who have a responsibility for such in Liverpool? As my late mother would say "You're better off talking to the wall, at least it won't answer back!". They know best???? MM
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by mjr »

Keep shouting into the Abyss MM! One day we will start to hear echoes!
Syd wrote: 19 Jun 2021, 7:15am Whilst technically correct, the spacing of the posts (certainly around here) are such that it makes moving out of, and back into, the lane hazardous without coming to an almost complete stop.
www.writeToThem.com and paste that and more to the responsible councillor (usually county), please. I see in the news that DfT has written to councils recently to remind them to build stuff properly or lose funding.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
Syd
Posts: 1230
Joined: 23 Sep 2018, 2:27pm

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by Syd »

mjr wrote:Keep shouting into the Abyss MM! One day we will start to hear echoes!
Syd wrote: 19 Jun 2021, 7:15am Whilst technically correct, the spacing of the posts (certainly around here) are such that it makes moving out of, and back into, the lane hazardous without coming to an almost complete stop.
www.writeToThem.com and paste that and more to the responsible councillor (usually county), please. I see in the news that DfT has written to councils recently to remind them to build stuff properly or lose funding.
I have personally spoken to local MPs and Councillors on this and has confirmation that is was raised at the relevant meetings.

I have requested minutes and action notes from those meetings as there have been no changes. I’m still waiting.
mattsccm
Posts: 5101
Joined: 28 Nov 2009, 9:44pm

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by mattsccm »

I wonder if we, as a minority , have the right to demand more. Is that really fair? Should we be treated the same* or favoured?
*Same/fair to me is absolute equality, no giving extras to allow for disadvantages.
Not suggesting we should always give in but looking at things from the greater populations point of view, if only to see the enemy.
My long term analogy is this. I can't run at the same speed as Bolt. Is a fair race both of us starting together and me getting hammered or me starting 80 metres up the track and getting a draw? So many people want the latter today but to my mind that is immoral, nay disgusting.
That will be, in some form, the views of a huge proportion of the population and to ignore or put it down isn't wise.
Of course I am talking twaddle anyway as cycle lanes where I ride can't/won't happen and I give no toss whatsoever about the cities :D :roll:
ratherbeintobago
Posts: 974
Joined: 5 Dec 2010, 6:31pm

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by ratherbeintobago »

It’s not about us though, is it? It’s about the greater number of people who don’t consider themselves to be cyclists but who would travel by bike if the infrastructure was adequate for them to feel safe doing so.
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by merseymouth »

Hi Mattccm, We can agree on one thing? You are talking a load of Twaddle! :oops: MM
thirdcrank
Posts: 36776
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by thirdcrank »

mattsccm wrote: 19 Jun 2021, 10:18pm I wonder if we, as a minority , have the right to demand more. Is that really fair? Should we be treated the same* or favoured?
*Same/fair to me is absolute equality, no giving extras to allow for disadvantages.
Not suggesting we should always give in but looking at things from the greater populations point of view, if only to see the enemy.
My long term analogy is this. I can't run at the same speed as Bolt. Is a fair race both of us starting together and me getting hammered or me starting 80 metres up the track and getting a draw? So many people want the latter today but to my mind that is immoral, nay disgusting.
That will be, in some form, the views of a huge proportion of the population and to ignore or put it down isn't wise.
Of course I am talking twaddle anyway as cycle lanes where I ride can't/won't happen and I give no toss whatsoever about the cities :D :roll:
I think the point you may be missing is that the drivers of vehicles all occupy a certain amount of space - roughly calculated as their width X stopping distance. Two vehicles occupying the same space - often their stopping distance - will often result in a crash. Now, vulnerable road users recognise this - even if they don't use my explanation - and are often deterred. And by the acts of driving at an inappropriate speed or assuming they have priority, many drivers not only demand more but take more. Of course, this also applies between the drivers of motor vehicles.
merseymouth
Posts: 2519
Joined: 23 Jan 2011, 11:16am

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by merseymouth »

Hi, Well said Thirdcrank :D . Neatly summed up, throw in arrogance and it explains the reason for many tragic incidents. MM
User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14649
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by gaz »

mattsccm wrote: 19 Jun 2021, 10:18pmMy long term analogy is this. I can't run at the same speed as Bolt. Is a fair race both of us starting together and me getting hammered or me starting 80 metres up the track and getting a draw? So many people want the latter today but to my mind that is immoral, nay disgusting.
IMO that's a flawed analogy.

In a race of "Me v Mr Bolt" we've both got one human power and I can get your point that we're equal.

Now put "Me" on a cycle and "Mr Bolt" in a car and you've got one human power v 2-300 horse power. To position that as equivalent is immoral.
High on a cocktail of flossy teacakes and marmalade
cycle tramp
Posts: 3531
Joined: 5 Aug 2009, 7:22pm

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by cycle tramp »

mattsccm wrote: 19 Jun 2021, 10:18pm I wonder if we, as a minority , have the right to demand more. Is that really fair? Should we be treated the same* or favoured?
*Same/fair to me is absolute equality, no giving extras to allow for disadvantages.
This sort of introspection is always a sign of a well balanced and self aware person.

In this case, I might argue that
(I) the haulage association, motoring groups and civil construction agencies are always and will always be arguing for more, bigger and wider roads to be built, so it balances the argument to ask for greater investment in cycle facilities...
(II) The last time I looked cycle journeys made in the UK accounted for 1 to 3% of all journeys, so it would be nice if 1 to 3% of all transport investments both locally and nationally could be spent on cycle facilities (currently funds spent on cycling facilities is below that of 1 to 3% of all road transport schemes)
(III) Motor transport has hidden costs - it may make you fat, and ruin your health- however cycling improves health, so that there's less strain on the NHS. This cost saving of more healthier people which don't need the NHS so much could be spent on better cycling facilities
(IV) I've not bought a whole ready built bike in years, but someone did say that if I did I would have to pay 20% in vat which then goes to the government for anything they fancied. There is a moral argument that this 20% tax should be ring fenced and used for better cycling facilities.
(VI) Global warming is going to cost the uk a lot. Looking at my map when the seas do rise, the occupants of Bridgwater, Burnham on Sea , East Huntspill, Huntspill Fordgate and numerous small villages are going to have to be re-housed. It's going to be very very very expensive. And that's just in the area where I live Therefore it makes sense to use some money to try and prevent global warming by investing heavily in good cycle facilities. Apparently there are two water pumping stations which have to work flat out when it rains heavily to stop parts of Burnham on Sea from sinking into the mud - and that's now......
Motorhead: god was never on your sidehttps://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=m ... +your+side
dratt
Posts: 14
Joined: 27 Jan 2007, 10:45am

Re: CUK protesting removal of cycle lane

Post by dratt »

[Disclaimer- I work for a Local Authority so tend to see the public sector side of things]

It is difficult to see what CUK are trying to achieve through this case. The papers suggest CUK have not even tried to discuss the matter with the Council but have just served them with a summons. So public money is spent arguing a trivial point that could have better been spent working out what would make sustainable travel a more likely travel choice in the area. Being taken to court by an advocate group does not enhance the image of that group in the eyes of the politicians who ultimately make the decisions about where to spend money.

The whole thing seems a little bit reactionary. And doesn't demonstrate much strategic thinking from CUK.
Post Reply