Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by Vorpal »

AndyBSG wrote:The only 'provision' for this that I can actually see is that they're going to put a few signs up and not actually put in any dedicated lanes or even the half hearted magically painted lane that some councils do to at least pretend they've provided a cycling facility!


You probably don't want lanes. They've done a crap job of installing them in the past. I used to write to Essex CC to ask them to remove lanes because they were too narrow to be useful, and I would get buzzed or shouted at for not using them. When I wrote to ECC, the response was invariably on the order of 'the next time we re-do that section, we'll put you on the pavement, instead' :roll:
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by mjr »

And there you get another problem demonstrated. Cynical old darts who prefer to throw mud at other cycling bodies based on prejudice or past failures, or suggest it's all futile and demotivate newcomers :-(

The positive lessons to take are to point to design manuals which cover things like decent minimum widths and to let the nationals (and any other locals, but few places have multiple local groups) know what you're doing, to reduce the risk that they'll contradict you. We're stronger if we stand united as much as possible.

It won't work every time, but some successes are better than none.
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.
atlas_shrugged
Posts: 534
Joined: 8 Nov 2016, 7:50pm

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by atlas_shrugged »

Copied below is my own list. My top marks go to Oxfordshire CC for their cycle design guide complete with a C. Councillor who is explicitly supporting this guide. Sadly current cycleways being built in Oxford are ruined by: tactile paving/not staying at grade/extreme turns/hostile barriers/lack of joined up connection/police vans parked on a cycleway etc etc.

Disgracefully Cambridgeshire CC do not seem to have produced a cycling standard even though there is a half decent Cyclenation (2014) guide which was produced by Cambridge folk.

It is very worthwhile getting the CC to produce their own guide having distilled all the current best practice from all these other guides. Or maybe we should just hire the Dutch and the Danish to get this done.


References
Aldred, Elliott, Woodcock Goodman, (2017) Cycling provision separated from motor traffic. Transport
Reviews, 37:1, 29-55, DOI:10.1080/01441647.2016.1200156
Botma & Papendrecht, (1991) Traffic operation of bicycle traffic. TU-Delft.
Cook, (1946), Design & Layout of Roads in Built-up Areas. Ministry of War Transport.
CROW, (2016) Design Manual for bicycle traffic ISBN 978 90 6628 494 4. Ede, The Netherlands.
CycleNation (2014) Making Space for Cycling http://www.makingspaceforcycling.org/
DfT and HA. (2016) IAN 195/16 Cycle Traffic and the Strategic Road Network
Gaardbo Cycling and Safety Measures in Danish Road Standards. Vejdirektoratet:
http://www.tii.ie/tii-library/conferenc ... rdbo-2016-
TII-Bicycle-Safety-DK.pdf
Oxfordshire CC. Oxfordshire Cycling Standard:
https://www.oxfordshire.gov.uk/cms/site ... rtpolicies
andplans/newdevelopments/CyclingStandards.pdf
Reid. Bike Boom: The Unexpected Resurgence of Cycling
Sustrans, (2015), Design Manual Chapter 7 Junctions and crossings.
TfL, (2016), London Cycling Design Standards.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by Vorpal »

mjr wrote:And there you get another problem demonstrated. Cynical old darts who prefer to throw mud at other cycling bodies based on prejudice or past failures, or suggest it's all futile and demotivate newcomers :-(

That's fair. I didn't mean to be negative (ok, I did, but not about campaigning ). I did have some successes. And things have gone somewhat better in Colchester recently, so there's hope :)

I certainly don't want to put anyone off!
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by mjr »

atlas_shrugged wrote:It is very worthwhile getting the CC to produce their own guide having distilled all the current best practice from all these other guides. Or maybe we should just hire the Dutch and the Danish to get this done.

I'd rather encourage the CC to adopt one of the already-produced standards, rather than waste resources and probably produce something not as good (been there, narrowly avoided doing that - I've got a copy of the draft :mad: which never got beyond draft :) )

The London Cycling Design Standards is probably the best bet for Essex, to provide continuity of style with London (and even Norfolk seems to be following this more and more) although I think they'll be pressed to follow the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (with its cycleway update IAN 195/16) for any roads built with national money in future.
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.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by Vorpal »

mjr wrote:
atlas_shrugged wrote:It is very worthwhile getting the CC to produce their own guide having distilled all the current best practice from all these other guides. Or maybe we should just hire the Dutch and the Danish to get this done.

I'd rather encourage the CC to adopt one of the already-produced standards, rather than waste resources and probably produce something not as good (been there, narrowly avoided doing that - I've got a copy of the draft :mad: which never got beyond draft :) )

The London Cycling Design Standards is probably the best bet for Essex, to provide continuity of style with London (and even Norfolk seems to be following this more and more) although I think they'll be pressed to follow the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (with its cycleway update IAN 195/16) for any roads built with national money in future.

ECC already have a design guide. I linked to it on Amazon above, though I expect it can be ordered form a bookshop.

I have a copy. It's a decent guide. It's not perfect, but combined with the Essex Design Guide (based onthe Manual for Streets), and implemented in the spirit in which it is meant, it would come pretty close. The problem, in my experience, is twofold. Getting specific project managers and/or contractors to apply it in spirit, rather than by letter (It says 'guidance' not 'requirement'! :roll: ) and the lack of joined up thinking. The subway on the cover of 'Designing for Cyclists' is a perfect example of this. By itself, it is a good facility, leading to two facilities that go to shops, schools, etc., and avoiding the horrid McDonald's roundabout (Galley's Corner). But there is absolutely nothing for cyclists coming from / going to west of Braintree. They have to cope with one of the A120, A131, or the very busy B1018. Even if they can avoid using the A120, they likely still have to cross it, or use the McDonald's roundabout to get to the area cycle routes.

This has tended to go better on new projects, than getting bad infrastructure improved.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by mjr »

Vorpal wrote:
mjr wrote:The London Cycling Design Standards is probably the best bet for Essex, to provide continuity of style with London (and even Norfolk seems to be following this more and more) although I think they'll be pressed to follow the Design Manual for Roads and Bridges (with its cycleway update IAN 195/16) for any roads built with national money in future.

ECC already have a design guide. I linked to it on Amazon above, though I expect it can be ordered form a bookshop.

I have a copy. It's a decent guide. [...]

I don't have a copy and I doubt a guide produced in 2011 is current.

Vorpal wrote:The subway on the cover of 'Designing for Cyclists' is a perfect example of this. By itself, it is a good facility, leading to two facilities that go to shops, schools, etc., and avoiding the horrid McDonald's roundabout (Galley's Corner). [...]

I'm not sure I'd call that a good facility. Average/basic, perhaps - https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.8 ... .81p,1.71z looks like sub-1960s/70s provision, making cyclists take a bendy wood/hedge-lined detour along what looks like a pavement down a descent into a tunnel they can't see into from very far back and then climb back up again. Then, as you say, it connects nothing to nothing at present and the grass growing through the cracks makes me think it's been there a while. Make the flipping motorists go up and down, not the humans.

I really would push for LCDS instead. I don't think that sort of underpass would be built in London now.
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.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by Vorpal »

mjr wrote:[I'm not sure I'd call that a good facility. Average/basic, perhaps - https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.8 ... .81p,1.71z looks like sub-1960s/70s provision, making cyclists take a bendy wood/hedge-lined detour along what looks like a pavement down a descent into a tunnel they can't see into from very far back and then climb back up again. Then, as you say, it connects nothing to nothing at present and the grass growing through the cracks makes me think it's been there a while. Make the flipping motorists go up and down, not the humans.


Have you used that subway?
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by mjr »

Vorpal wrote:
mjr wrote:[I'm not sure I'd call that a good facility. Average/basic, perhaps - https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.8 ... .81p,1.71z looks like sub-1960s/70s provision, making cyclists take a bendy wood/hedge-lined detour along what looks like a pavement down a descent into a tunnel they can't see into from very far back and then climb back up again. [...]


Have you used that subway?

Not that particular one, but plenty of similar ones. We know what the frequently-made mistakes are and how to avoid them is now in the aforementioned DMRB IAN 195/16, section 2.5.

If we can't comment on stuff unless we've used that particular example, how can anyone ever comment on plans?
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.
Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 20700
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: Proposed Cycle Facility Help?

Post by Vorpal »

mjr wrote:
Vorpal wrote:
mjr wrote:[I'm not sure I'd call that a good facility. Average/basic, perhaps - https://www.instantstreetview.com/@51.8 ... .81p,1.71z looks like sub-1960s/70s provision, making cyclists take a bendy wood/hedge-lined detour along what looks like a pavement down a descent into a tunnel they can't see into from very far back and then climb back up again. [...]


Have you used that subway?

Not that particular one, but plenty of similar ones. We know what the frequently-made mistakes are and how to avoid them is now in the aforementioned DMRB IAN 195/16, section 2.5.

If we can't comment on stuff unless we've used that particular example, how can anyone ever comment on plans?

Plans are different from the photo on the cover of a book. If you had used the subway, you would be aware that the sight lines are actually pretty good. It's not the dark, dank tunnel that many subways are. And it does connect to valuable facilities. The biggest problem with it is that it only does half the job. I was not trying to argue that it's an amazing example. I was using it an example of a lack of joined up thinking.

AndyBSG may be able to use the DMRB to back up his comments. If they say it doesn't apply because it's not a Highways England project, then he can refer them to the ECC guide. Or he can start with both. Either way, I don't think we need to argue about the quality of the subway outside Braintree on his thread about facilities in Chelmsford. :)
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom
Post Reply