Quality Infra

[mjr]

..... all cyclist are not equal therefore we should cater, with cycling infrastructure, to the lowest common demoninator (inexperienced children, the physically weak, the inept, et al) to encourage them to cycle. But if cycling infrastructure is all designed specifically to cater to a physically weak and inept 12 year old, it won't suit the other 99% of cyclists, of all types and abilities.

Not necessarily. The design can include the 12 year old without excluding the other 99%. It's like how we can design streets so that articulated delivery lorries can turn without excluding cars with smaller turning circles or buses with rigid bodies. Until recently, most UK cycle route designs managed to exclude both the 12 year old who wouldn't "take the lane" through difficult junctions and the fast cyclist wanting to cruise on straight sections at 20mph, as well as the average cyclist who just didn't want to spend the entire time getting seasick bumping over driveway accesses and slowing for twistier blinder junctions than the roads had to deal with - such good-for-no-one designs could almost be seen as a perverse achievement! Thankfully some recent stuff is bolder and actually works for most.

What would suit all cyclists? Well, the existing roads, since they are tried and tested ... as long as the more obvious dangers are reduced by the perfectly reasonable application of already extant laws to the hunderds of thousands of motorists who routinely break them and get away with it - even if they maim or kill someone, in some cases.

Tried, tested and failed - we must design for the people who we want to get cycling, not only for all cyclists willing to tolerate the current awful designs, else we will remain a car-sick country facing a public health crisis.

[Bmblbzzz]

Why the pessimism about infrastructure? Why will only "very little" infrastructure be provided and why will it be inadequate? Why can the Netherlands and Denmark, now Flanders and increasingly more of France do it but the UK generally can't? Why can't we generalise the few places building some decent stuff and spread the good practice nationwide?
......

The pessimism is based in realism. I might quote your own remark from the same post: "Ah, should, should, should... if wishes were horses. How are you going to make it so? By appealing to the powerful cycling lobby which doesn't actually exist - and never will unless we do things to get more people cycling from the current pretty awful starting point"?

Pessimism over infrastructure is not realism because we are now making it so. Only in some small pockets so far, mainly cities, partly due to national government grant goals apparently ignoring solid conservative-voting rural areas in favour of trying to win votes in suburban marginals by simultaneously enabling cycling and reducing congestion.

This is slightly OT, but: that's an interesting take on it! I live in a large city which has had a bit of infrastructure investment over the last fifteen years or so and I don't think anyone credits central government with it; it's seen as being the work of local authorities and to an extent organisations such as Sustrans. Of course the same applies in reverse; rabid motorisers give the local authorities all the blame! I think in fact that DfT do see the benefit of cycle infrastructure but for political reasons can't be seen to see it, so give LAs the responsibility for it.

[mjr]

I have heard from other cyclists that if you have not registered a complaint about the condition of the path, you are unlikely to get out of a fine. I do not know anything about the accuracy of this; it could be urban myth.

It sounds like an urban myth.

Belgian drivers are not shy about letting cyclists know when they shouldn't be on the road

Yeah, in my experience, Belgian drivers are not shy about letting you know anything. I'm glad they seem to be managed, directed towards a relatively small number of big roads and often discouraged from mixing with people cycling, walking or around historic buildings, rather than the drive-anywhere-and-everywhere policies of most of the UK.

Lorsqu'une partie de la voie publique est indiquée par le signal D10, les cyclistes doivent faire usage de celle-ci.

'When part of the public way is marked with sign D10, cyclists must use it' is clear & without any 'when practicable'.

But can you see any sign D10 in ianrobo's video? I saw some D7 in the rural areas and in Ghent a mix of D7 and C3 with except-cycles plates, although some of the cycle lanes seemed completely unsigned. People seem to be using those cycleways mainly because ordinary people will actually choose to use a cycleway that's merely average, not because of compulsion, and it's probably part of the reason why half of Belgians cycle regularly compared to at most 1 in 6 in the UK (if you're generous and let "regularly" include once a month - it's fewer than 1 in 10 if you move that to 3 times a week) - that's what right-to-roads die-hards seem unable to stomach.

[Vorpal]

I did not watch all of ianrobo's video, and I was not referring to the need to use *those* particular cycle paths. Actually, I think the law is not completely clear, but what you read as 'practicable' I read as 'useable'.

Also, it appears to be phrased slightly differently in Flemish than French, though I am no expert in either.

I do know that there are some exceptions, like pedal cycles that are too wide, and large groups don't have to use the cycle paths.

[The utility cyclist]

As ive posted elsewhere.
Once you take into account the massive differential in actual usable segregated cycling for UK v NL which reduces the exposure rate to motorvehicles massively in favour to NL (by at least 10:1) then adjust the cycled miles per person to people who actually cycle (not per population head) plus the supposed safety in numbers factor, the segregated Dutch cyclist system appears to have a relatively high death toll and not as effective as people think/push it to be.

Despite the massively reduced exposure rate in a country that supposedly is the leader in cycling safety the death toll is currently 150-180 though many more older deaths bucking the reduction trend due to e-bike use!
Even their iverall road KSI rate per billion miles is higher than the UK, but with segregated cyclists doing a huge share of the miles away from motorvehicles and supposedly better drivers whom are more likely to be cyclists themselves than in the UK how can this possibly be???

Yes, the safety thing has come up several times, and like any statistics, you can slice it many different ways. Per (billion) km travelled seems like a reasonable way to include exposure. Per cyclist may not be a good way to do it because of differing types of trips and populations of cyclists. For example, the population of cyclists in the Netherlands includes many more children, who are bound to have higher crash risk. Furthermore, children who do cycle in the UK seldom have their crashes reported as RTCs because they cycle in parks and school yards, instead of as transport.

Also 'effective' somewhat depends on what you want to accomplish. Getting people to make 25% of trips by bicycle is certainly 'effective' in that it reduces obesity and related health issues, reduces pollution, and improves traffic flow. Both the UK and the Netherlands have relatively low injury risk for cyclists. Which has a nicer environment for cycling?

IF segregated is so wonderful/safe why despite the massively less exposure to motorised traffic (you know the thing that is the root cause of cycling injuries/deaths) are there so many cycling deaths in NL?
Despite more investment in infra year on year cycling deaths are not going down, it's hovered around the 200 mark since 2004, 185 is the 2016 figure, compared to other modes its gone backwards in terms of safety.

I'm not against segregated infra as I said above, but it has its limitations and importantly it has other negative side effects including not being as safe as some state it to be. it's why I don't think segregated is the main solution for the UK, which won't be getting NL segregated infra anytime in the next 50 years if ever.
ignore the exposure to motorvehicle aspect all you like but it's a hugely important factor when looking at safety and stats. Either Dutch motorists who are cyclists themselves more often than not are much worse than UK drivers who don't cycle at all, or the infra isn't as good as some think and has unexpected (to most) down sides, which is it?

[mjr]

I did not watch all of ianrobo's video, and I was not referring to the need to use *those* particular cycle paths. Actually, I think the law is not completely clear, but what you read as 'practicable' I read as 'useable'.

Also, it appears to be phrased slightly differently in Flemish than French, though I am no expert in either.

My French is far better than my Flemish, so I was actually reading the French and translated "praticable" pretty directly to English, although it shares a similar usable/feasible ambiguity as in English. Interestingly, http://www.cnrtl.fr/definition/praticable explicitly labels the second feasible sense as "of a way" and defines it as "where one can pass without difficulty or danger", rather than the "of something inanimate" sense of "that which one can put into practice or put into action". It would be helpful to know how the Belgians interpret it in practice.

I do know that there are some exceptions, like pedal cycles that are too wide, and large groups don't have to use the cycle paths.

Not that large a group: 15 or more... but I think then you get into other rules about road captains, which may be why chain gangs I've seen have split into smaller groups much as most UK groups seem to and used the cycleways (especially the Fietssnelwegs and Landelijke Fietsroutes).

[mjr]

IF segregated is so wonderful/safe why despite the massively less exposure to motorised traffic (you know the thing that is the root cause of cycling injuries/deaths) are there so many cycling deaths in NL?

So much in one very loaded question that I'll try to unpack the biggest problems in turn:
1. Segregated is not the only infrastructure. Even in NL, it's probably a minority of it, as others have mentioned above. There are concepts like unravelling of routes, to try to encourage different modes to use different routes, but outright segregation is much rarer than Brits seem to think - it's easy to mistake a quiet no-through-road only used by a few residents for a segregated cycleway.

2. That has wonderful/safe as if they're synonyms, which is bonkers, setting up the straw man of claiming people want infrastructure because it's safer, which isn't it - we want it to be safe, but it's more about things like stress or perceived safety than objective safety.

3. Is there massively less exposure to motorised traffic? NL cyclists are still often exposed at the places where most collisions with motor vehicles happen, such as junctions.

4. Are there "so many cycling deaths in NL" once you take into account that over 90% of them cycle regularly and it's something like a quarter of all journeys?

it's why I don't think segregated is the main solution for the UK, which won't be getting NL segregated infra anytime in the next 50 years if ever.

Ah, defeatism - a key plank of the anti-infrastructure argument, basically saying it's impossible because it's impossible because it's impossible because it's impossible...

ignore the exposure to motorvehicle aspect all you like but it's a hugely important factor when looking at safety and stats. Either Dutch motorists who are cyclists themselves more often than not are much worse than UK drivers who don't cycle at all, or the infra isn't as good as some think and has unexpected (to most) down sides, which is it?

Does it have to be an either/or? I think Dutch motorists are pretty bad (and Belgians worse), the infrastructure has a pretty minor effect on objective safety but that's not why to build it, plus you're massively overestimating the difference in exposure to motorists.

[Vorpal]

IF segregated is so wonderful/safe why despite the massively less exposure to motorised traffic (you know the thing that is the root cause of cycling injuries/deaths) are there so many cycling deaths in NL?
Despite more investment in infra year on year cycling deaths are not going down, it's hovered around the 200 mark since 2004, 185 is the 2016 figure, compared to other modes its gone backwards in terms of safety.

I'm not against segregated infra as I said above, but it has its limitations and importantly it has other negative side effects including not being as safe as some state it to be. it's why I don't think segregated is the main solution for the UK, which won't be getting NL segregated infra anytime in the next 50 years if ever.
ignore the exposure to motorvehicle aspect all you like but it's a hugely important factor when looking at safety and stats. Either Dutch motorists who are cyclists themselves more often than not are much worse than UK drivers who don't cycle at all, or the infra isn't as good as some think and has unexpected (to most) down sides, which is it?

There isn't as much segregation in the Netherlands as many people seem to think there is. I'm certain that there are more kms cycled in the Netherlands, exposed to motor traffic, than there are in the UK.

I don't think there is anything special about Dutch motorists. Being cyclists probably tends to improve them a bit. How much difference does it make? I have no idea. There are still a significant minority who do things every bit as stupidly (and maybe worse) than British drivers.

I don't understand your question. Of course segregated infrastructure has downsides. Where has anyone said it doesn't? The benefits seem to outweigh the disadvantages, and most cyclists prefer good quality segregation where it makes sense to have it.


That said, if I were picking solutions for the UK, I would model my approach more on what Sweden and Norway do, rather than the Netherlands, not because I dislike segregation, but because I think it would get more benefit, more quickly, and for less money.

[mjr]

That said, if I were picking solutions for the UK, I would model my approach more on what Sweden and Norway do, rather than the Netherlands, not because I dislike segregation, but because I think it would get more benefit, more quickly, and for less money.

What's that like then? Videos of Stockholm like this make me think it's not quite as good as what London's now building.
[youtube]2GNaW_1q-QM[/youtube]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2GNaW_1q-QM

[Cugel]

..... all cyclist are not equal therefore we should cater, with cycling infrastructure, to the lowest common demoninator (inexperienced children, the physically weak, the inept, et al) to encourage them to cycle. But if cycling infrastructure is all designed specifically to cater to a physically weak and inept 12 year old, it won't suit the other 99% of cyclists, of all types and abilities.

Not necessarily. The design can include the 12 year old without excluding the other 99%. It's like how we can design streets so that articulated delivery lorries can turn without excluding cars with smaller turning circles or buses with rigid bodies. Until recently, most UK cycle route designs managed to exclude both the 12 year old who wouldn't "take the lane" through difficult junctions and the fast cyclist wanting to cruise on straight sections at 20mph, as well as the average cyclist who just didn't want to spend the entire time getting seasick bumping over driveway accesses and slowing for twistier blinder junctions than the roads had to deal with - such good-for-no-one designs could almost be seen as a perverse achievement! Thankfully some recent stuff is bolder and actually works for most.

What would suit all cyclists? Well, the existing roads, since they are tried and tested ... as long as the more obvious dangers are reduced by the perfectly reasonable application of already extant laws to the hunderds of thousands of motorists who routinely break them and get away with it - even if they maim or kill someone, in some cases.

Tried, tested and failed - we must design for the people who we want to get cycling, not only for all cyclists willing to tolerate the current awful designs, else we will remain a car-sick country facing a public health crisis.

Virtually all the cycling infrastructure I've come across (of the recent ilk, at least) is very badly designed. Separate (from roads) paths are often made as shared paths for cyclists and pedestrians. Typically they're narrow, full of blind bends and with a high chance of collision if one is either an inattentive pedestrian (and/or dog-walker) or a cyclist doing more than 8mph. Road areas marked for cyclists are often too-narrow gutterways full of detritus, parked cars, lampposts, sudden stops and other features that make them either dangerous or unusable.

I'm sure there will be a modicum of decent cycling infrastructure somewhere in Blighty. I know about 2 miles worth in West Wales and perhaps 1/2 mile in North Lancashire. I don't count old railway lines that go from nowhere much to nowhere much else via a convoluted route, even if they are without significant hills.

Of course, my inadequate infrastructure definition might well suit that inept, weak 12 year-old.

As to the roads being designed primarily for motorists ... that may be true for motorway-style dual carriageways of the modern ilk but the vast majority of British roads were designed initially for slow traffic - bicycles, carts and so forth. They are of themselves very adequate for all travelling purposes (not least because they go to and from places you too wish to depart from and go to). What makes them less-ideal is the presence of Mr Toad. Remove Toadish behaviour and they will once more be a very good infrastructure not just for all varieties of cyclist but every other wheeled (or four-legged) traveller.

Cugel

[pjclinch]

Virtually all the cycling infrastructure I've come across (of the recent ilk, at least) is very badly designed.

I don't think you'll actually find much dissent from most UK infra being pants. However, that doesn't mean it has to be that way, nor that it will necessarily continue to be that way.

Of course, my inadequate infrastructure definition might well suit that inept, weak 12 year-old.

If it's rubbish for you it'll be rubbish for them. Which is why there's so little child cycling in the UK. If it was any good (and that requires quality and quantity) then the UK "school run" could end up looking more like this...

[youtube]8NUgB_xkIvU[/youtube]

[Vorpal]

That said, if I were picking solutions for the UK, I would model my approach more on what Sweden and Norway do, rather than the Netherlands, not because I dislike segregation, but because I think it would get more benefit, more quickly, and for less money.

What's that like then? Videos of Stockholm like this make me think it's not quite as good as what London's now building.

I don't know Stockholm that well. I've only cycled there a couple of times, but from my experience with Nordic infrastructure, there are likely better routes that the ones shown in that video. I could make a film like that in Oslo, or the city where I live, but I would not normally cycle on routes that look like that, and more importantly, I don't have to.

For example, to go from my house to the city centre, I can use the closest main road (awful), or the next closest main road, which has narrow cycle lanes (like seen in the film). But I don't do either. I cycle on the old main road, which has limited traffic permeability and 30 kph speed limits. Maybe it will cost me a few seconds on my journey time over one of the other choices, but it's a very much nicer route. Coming home, I sometimes cycle on the riverside cycle path which is shared use and a bit slower.

I'm not recommending Nordic cycle lanes, BTW. I don't like them. They are too narrow. The only advantage they have over the British sort is priority. I do recommend the design philosophy, which provides and prioritises key routes for cyclists in the same way that other routes are effectively prioritised for motor traffic.

edited to add: Also residential areas have 30 kph speed limits and limited traffic permeability. They are also typically connected by either quiet roads, or segregated infrastructure.

[mjr]

Not necessarily. The design can include the 12 year old without excluding the other 99%. It's like how we can design streets so that articulated delivery lorries can turn without excluding cars with smaller turning circles or buses with rigid bodies. Until recently, most UK cycle route designs managed to exclude both the 12 year old who wouldn't "take the lane" through difficult junctions and the fast cyclist wanting to cruise on straight sections at 20mph, as well as the average cyclist who just didn't want to spend the entire time getting seasick bumping over driveway accesses and slowing for twistier blinder junctions than the roads had to deal with - such good-for-no-one designs could almost be seen as a perverse achievement! Thankfully some recent stuff is bolder and actually works for most.

What would suit all cyclists? Well, the existing roads, since they are tried and tested ... as long as the more obvious dangers are reduced by the perfectly reasonable application of already extant laws to the hunderds of thousands of motorists who routinely break them and get away with it - even if they maim or kill someone, in some cases.

Tried, tested and failed - we must design for the people who we want to get cycling, not only for all cyclists willing to tolerate the current awful designs, else we will remain a car-sick country facing a public health crisis.

Virtually all the cycling infrastructure I've come across (of the recent ilk, at least) is very badly designed. Separate (from roads) paths are often made as shared paths for cyclists and pedestrians.

Yeah, we're not talking about the same thing:
[youtube]xKIX6HE577U[/youtube]
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xKIX6HE577U

Of course, my inadequate infrastructure definition might well suit that inept, weak 12 year-old.

Yes, we get it, you don't want to cycle with 12 year olds...

As to the roads being designed primarily for motorists ... that may be true for motorway-style dual carriageways of the modern ilk but the vast majority of British roads were designed initially for slow traffic - bicycles, carts and so forth. They are of themselves very adequate for all travelling purposes (not least because they go to and from places you too wish to depart from and go to). What makes them less-ideal is the presence of Mr Toad. Remove Toadish behaviour and they will once more be a very good infrastructure not just for all varieties of cyclist but every other wheeled (or four-legged) traveller.

How, given the current electorate?

[pwa]

Quality infrastructure is going to be high on your list of personal concerns if much of your cycling is urban or on /alongside busy trunk roads. That is the case for many. For me, just thinking selfishly of myself, it is less of a concern because my urban cycling is minimal and my favourite sort of route is on country lanes.

But I would like to be able to cycle to Cardiff city centre without having to endure the drone of traffic. Decent lanes end about five or six miles short of the centre, and although I have cycled down the A48 from Culverhouse Cross I thought the whole experience grotty. I don't get scared in busy urban traffic, I just feel dirty and unsatisfied. I'm not sure a cycle facility alongside the motor traffic would win me over. It's not my idea of good cycling.

[wjmh]

Hi.

Just joined the forum, so apologies for my naivety. My grip is so many of the so called "cycle lanes". I cycle 20 miles to work. I would estimate there are cycle lanes for about a third of my journey, but I use very few of them. I guess my gripes are familiar to many:
- Some of the cycle lanes are shared with pedestrians (schoolchildren).
- Cars are parked on the cycle lane.
- The cycle lanes are interrupted by side roads (where it is expected that the cycle will give way).
- Rejoining the road when the cycle lane runs out is always difficult and dangerous because no car will give way.

Can somebody tell me if the goverment/cycle uk/ anybody has an agreed standard which removes or at least reduces these problems.

Southampton Council - and I'm sure many more - is very keen to proclaim the amount of dedicated cycle lanes they have. But how many are fit for purpose? Only cycle lanes which meet an agreed standard should be included in any statistics.