Cycling UK Forum

Scooters and hoverboards add to Dutch cycle lane hell

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/ ... _clipboard

We've already had hoverboards and scooters on quiet roads as well as cycleways for a couple of years now. Ours are not as busy as the Netherlands so they don't seem to cause much trouble and the police seem completely uninterested so far.

Instead of using this as somewhat misguided fuel for an anti-infrastructure hobby-horse, I think we should probably be shocked that Gerrit van de Kamp of the ACP police union is saying that the police don't know the law and trying to use that to change the law instead of improve policing.

Getting passed by a moped with a top speed of about 30 mph on a cycle path is way less scary than plenty of the passes by cars on UK roads that cyclists experience routinely.

The fact that despite 74% of all travellers not going by bike and Dutch cycle lanes are congested at times proves that segregated facilities are not the best solution in some places.
Instead of calling people who question whether segregated infra is the solution "misguided" and throwing in "anti-infra hobby horse", why not engage with people to find out why they think segregated is not the way forward/best solution for some people on bikes and/or in some areas?

it's this oft narrow minded thinking that there's only one way to do X or if it doesn't meet with your personal feelings/approval that causes so much aggro on here.
Given that we in the UK will not be getting any joined up Dutch style infra any time soon, if ever, then we need to look at how other countries/cities are trying to resolve matters to keep people using bikes safer and encourage more cycling whilst at the same time not removing freedoms to travel in as direct and non circuitous route as possible - which is massively important to increasing cycling and is in part where segregated lanes fall down compared to the exsisting highway, this occurs even in the Netherlands.

The bottom pic is Denmark, note how spread out the people are, note the non segregation, you may be interested to know that Denmark is safer than NL for cycling safety (and no I'm not going by absolute numbers!) Copenhagen is moving toward the 'get the motors off the road' solution as is Oslo, Paris and other large cities are also going with the banishment of motors from the road approach albeit one day a week or month, not installing constrictive, circuitous cycle lanes everywhere, but look at the huge difference in Paris to how it would be even with a narrow segregated strip!

I appreciate that segregation is good for some types of people in some locations, but that's because there is no thought toward another solution, even in NL where segregated infra (that diverts from the shortest most direct routes often as not) criss-crosses the highway, this causes a significant proportion of the total deaths of those on bikes. The last report suggested it was c.60 from 200. yet this is in a country where cycling is seen as the default mode to travel (it isn't given it's 26% which has stagnated for years), where the motorists are supposedly fantastic.

And yet people see this as a good option for the UK, giving priority at junctions where cycling lanes cross roads all the time as per NL would be a disaster in this country for cyclists, we (people on bikes) have enough problems with std junctions as it is, sure the change will have to be adopted but that isn't going to stop the deaths as NL has found out. SIXTY people dying just at these locations alone, yes they have more people cycling but the infra is supposed to remove this issue, more people cycling is supposed to make cycling safer and yet despite all of this a lot of people are dying who ride bikes.

if we restrict motorvehicles from town/city centres as much as is possible (obviously some motors will have to enter) and change the way we look at who uses the existing infrastructure (the roads) and make it as difficult as possible for motorists to get about for short journeys, particularly crossing cities as a means to go through them - as it has been for cyclists for a century, then we have a chance at getting a significantly higher % of people back onto bikes for those short/shorter journeys where people live. There is room for everyone, including children on the roads if we take out the killing machines, it's also massively safer for pedestrians despite the killer cyclist/law breaking cyclist thug thinking.

Also motorists who are not used to having to share the road with people on bikes regularly or at all (due to segregation) are much more likely to either close pass you and put you in danger when there is no segregated lane or when a person simply wants to use the roads because this is the most direct route, is wide enough and simply your choice to use for no other reason than you can.

I'm not 'anti-segregation' per-se as I think removing motors completely from the highways is the greatest/best solution, I'm anti inadequate infrastructure, we have perfectly good infra already in the UK, it's just that it's given over to the wrong type of traveller/vehicle type to use and put others at constant threat of harm.
We have as much chance of the restricting of motors from existing infra route as we have of the building/installing massively expensive and adequate segregated cycle lanes in ev ery city/town route.

Option A is massively cheaper, instantly there, safer, more direct for people on bikes to get places, is wide enough for everyone (34% of all UK journeys by bike in the 40s remember which is more than 26% of the current Dutch travelling population by many millions!) ... option B isn't, not even in the best country in the world for such.

The Dutch model seems to facilitate both cycling and driving over appropriate distances. I don't have any real experience of the Danish system, but I'm not aware of anywhere that has achieved fairly high levels of cycling without a reasonable amount of segregated infrastructure. Personally I don't much like cycling amongst fast traffic, and the Dutch system provides an alternative provision where speeds are high. This has the apparent advantage for motorists that they don't generally need to worry about coming across vulnerable road users on those routes.

It is good that in NL they are starting to ban 30mph mopeds from the cycleways. Although not dangerous their 2-stroke engines really stink and they are noisy IMHO. They can startle riders not used to them when they overtake. Most of these mopeds are ridden by very young riders often with no crash hat.

There has been a large increase in eBikes and these are mostly ridden by older riders. In NL eBikes make up more than 50% of all the bikes. It is maybe telling that this demographic has seen an increase in accidents. I would not know if this is because the riders are older and getting back into the saddle again, or because these eBikes are often going on the roads and the accident happens on the road.

I have seen small 'cars' on NL cycleways and these were for disabled drivers (single width with small ICE). I have not seen any electric side by side cars on the cycleways. I would not think there would be room for them.

Whilst NL can show that cycling is much safer than countries which do not have segregation, e.g. the UK, and while their cycling is especially safe for vulnerable users then IMHO segregation is the way to go. The main issue with the segregation in NL has been its success.

The utility cyclist wrote:The fact that despite 74% of all travellers not going by bike and Dutch cycle lanes are congested at times proves that segregated facilities are not the best solution in some places.
Instead of calling people who question whether segregated infra is the solution "misguided" and throwing in "anti-infra hobby horse", why not engage with people to find out why they think segregated is not the way forward/best solution for some people on bikes and/or in some areas?

Because we already know that! No-one is saying separate facilities are the best way for everyone everywhere! You're arguing against something completely imaginary!

Low motor traffic areas are a useful approach in built-up areas but until we get more people cycling, we're unlikely to get them. Reclaiming/rehumanising other quasi-motorways is even less likely so we need safer spaces to enable cycling in the meantime.

it's this oft narrow minded thinking that there's only one way to do X or if it doesn't meet with your personal feelings/approval that causes so much aggro on here.

Indeed. Physician, heal thyself!

The bottom pic is Denmark, note how spread out the people are, note the non segregation,

Where is that? I'm pretty sure it is seregated except on the crossorads and the nearside cycleway kerb is just obscured by the volume of traffic.

Priority at junctions is controversial, even in NL. Personally, I say the painted priority doesn't matter much because the dangerous and careless motorists would ignore it anyway and they're the ones that hurt cyclists. What matters more is visibility and sight lines, to give cyclists a fighting chance at avoiding collisions. If motorists have a stop line, it should be well back, so that you can tell they've stopped and can't reach you before you're across.

Sixty of 200 cycling deaths were at intersections? That's tons better than Norfolk where it's 75% over recent years! I don't think that's as bad a rate as you imply.

When it comes to segregation I'm with Rosa Parks.

The only purpose of it is to keep us prevent us from causing as much as a seconds delay to the all important people in motors - at the expense of our safety and convenience. When they first started building them back in the '30s they were honest about their purpose - they didn't even attempt to persuade cyclists that it was for their benefit, assuming they would be made compulsory. Fortunately cyclists back then resisted and the government (unlike the rather more authoritarian regimes on the continent at the time) was unwilling to legislate to force cyclists to use facilities that even back then were known to increase the risk of crashes at junctions.

There has been a constant disinformation campaign since then to attempt to persuade us that these things are supposedly for our benefit. Sadly some cyclists have been taken in by the propaganda.

When it comes to segregation I'm with Rosa Parks.

The only purpose of it is to keep us prevent us from causing as much as a seconds delay to the all important people in motors - at the expense of our safety and convenience. When they first started building them back in the '30s they were honest about their purpose - they didn't even attempt to persuade cyclists that it was for their benefit, assuming they would be made compulsory. Fortunately cyclists back then resisted and the government (unlike the rather more authoritarian regimes on the continent at the time) was unwilling to legislate to force cyclists to use facilities that even back then were known to increase the risk of crashes at junctions.

There has been a constant disinformation campaign since then to attempt to persuade us that these things are supposedly for our benefit. Sadly some cyclists have been taken in by the propaganda.

I suppose http://www.bikeboom.info/segregation1946/ is just another part of that disinformation in the eyes of such evidence-free claimants and everyone claiming to enjoy cycling in countries like Denmark and the Netherlands are liars too!

Protected cycleways have their place. Most of the claims above have been debunked previously on this forum: search if you want to see it.

atlas_shrugged wrote:…. In NL eBikes make up more than 50% of all the bikes...

AFAICT that is not quite right; the stat that I heard was that e-bike sales accounted for 51% of turnover from bike sales. The proportion of e-bikes sold has been about 30% of all new bike sales for the last few years, and because they are usually more expensive they account for a disproportionate amount of in terms of turnover. Normal bikes typically last for at least ten years in the Netherlands, so it would take ten years of e-bike sales at 30% market share before the proportion of e-bikes in use reached anywhere near 30%, and that is assuming that e-bikes last a longer time than ordinary bikes. To date the evidence suggests that the reverse is probably true.

Probably at present the proportion of e-bikes vs normal bikes in use in NL is less than 10%.

cheers

mjr wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:The fact that despite 74% of all travellers not going by bike and Dutch cycle lanes are congested at times proves that segregated facilities are not the best solution in some places.
Instead of calling people who question whether segregated infra is the solution "misguided" and throwing in "anti-infra hobby horse", why not engage with people to find out why they think segregated is not the way forward/best solution for some people on bikes and/or in some areas?

Because we already know that! No-one is saying separate facilities are the best way for everyone everywhere! You're arguing against something completely imaginary!

I'm not so sure it's imaginary. Campaigners in UK do say they want segregated facilities on all roads. I think there's a misunderstanding, a difference of interpretation, of what that means. Campaigners for cycling in UK tend to be city-based. As a utility cyclist in an urban area you tend to do a lot of riding on busy roads - because those are where things are (shops, offices, schools, etc), and because they're the most direct routes between places and because even minor roads are often busy (and are slower to ride on because you have to give way so often, cluttered with badly parked cars, etc). This leads campaign groups to say we need segregated facilities on all roads. Whereas leisure riders hear this and think of the country lanes they typically like to ride on, whether for speed or ambling, and wonder how you could put any sort of kerb etc in that space. They also don't like the idea of changing the rural appearance for something that looks more urban. And the roadies want to be in the traffic for speed reasons. This difference of focus between campaigners and others leads to some neglect of the other's interpretation.

In Greater Manchester we now have a team working with Chris Boardman that will be changing our streets and roads to make them more appealing and safer for people riding bikes and people walking. They key here really is that it's trying to enable walking and cycling for people that don't currently see walking and cycling as viable alternatives to driving (even for short distances). For cycling this means trying to make it appealing to people that don't ride bikes and the evidence from cities around the world (not just from the Netherlands and Copenhagen) strongly supports segregated infrastructure and protected junctions for people riding bikes. People that already ride bikes and who are confident cyclists have different requirements to those who currently see cycling as too dangerous or just an unpleasant, inconvenient way to get around.

Segregated cycle lanes on busy roads are just one part of the solution. As important, if not more important, is filtering residential streets to stop rat running. This can open up whole neighbourhoods and make them a much more pleasant environment to just 'be' whether walking or cycling or just hanging around. So filtered neighbourhoods plus protection at busy junctions plus segregated lanes on busy roads is widely recognised as the way to get people out of cars and onto bikes and walking.

Its also widely recognised that making journeys by car, particularly for short journeys, needs to be more inconvenient. Its not enough just to build a few segregated lanes. And the cycle routes need to get people from where they are to where they want to be. It's no good having a fantastic segregated lane for most of a journey, only to spew cyclists out onto a busy, hostile junction. And the cycle routes need to be direct. So what we don't want are cycle circutous cycle routes that try to fit around existing motor traffic - the cycle routes sometimes need to take priority. This is something we're particularly crap at in the UK.

Reducing the amount of traffic is what we want as well, but we need alternatives because people still need to get around. Public transport is key as well, but getting people walking and cycling as well has so many other benefits that we absolutely should be doing everything we can to get people walking and riding bikes.

Copenhagen motorists have huge respect for cyclists - that's why their painted infrastructure works so well. We don't have that in the UK and realistically that won't change unless we can get huge numbers of people riding bikes. But painted bike lanes isn't enough to get folk cycling here - safe, segregated lanes are necessary.

The word that Chris Boardman's team use a lot is 'context'. There's no one size fits all solution and just building a few segregated lanes won't in itself get people cycling. But learning from cities around the world, we can come up with solutions that work in the context of UK towns and cities.

If anyone wants to know a bit more about how it's been done in GM, this is a really interesting read:

http://www.urbanmovement.co.uk/beeachampion.html

I've never heard of anybody campaigning for segregated facilities on ALL roads. There do, however, seem to be numerous examples of places in rural Little Britain where segregated provision for A roads would facilitate journeys which would otherwise be impractical. I'm not familiar with it, but the A14 seems to have some classic examples.

Speeds on minor roads in NL are rather lower. With a limit of ~40 mph even somebody who is exceeding the speed limit by 25% is still going appreciably slower than many drivers on UK back roads.

Bmblbzzz wrote:I'm not so sure it's imaginary. Campaigners in UK do say they want segregated facilities on all roads. I think there's a misunderstanding, a difference of interpretation, of what that means. Campaigners for cycling in UK tend to be city-based. As a utility cyclist in an urban area you tend to do a lot of riding on busy roads - because those are where things are (shops, offices, schools, etc), and because they're the most direct routes between places and because even minor roads are often busy (and are slower to ride on because you have to give way so often, cluttered with badly parked cars, etc). This leads campaign groups to say we need segregated facilities on all roads. Whereas leisure riders hear this and think of the country lanes they typically like to ride on, whether for speed or ambling, and wonder how you could put any sort of kerb etc in that space. They also don't like the idea of changing the rural appearance for something that looks more urban. And the roadies want to be in the traffic for speed reasons. This difference of focus between campaigners and others leads to some neglect of the other's interpretation.

I was going to stay out of this thread because it's all been said before; but this hasn't, and you're bang on.

The urban/rural divide is why there's so much disdain for shared-use foot/cycleways. These are a terrible idea in urban areas. In rural areas they can be a really good solution for medium-distance routes (near me, for example, Eynsham-Botley and Hanborough-Bladon are two that are to be constructed in the next few years). The distance between settlements means you get a low number of walkers, so you're essentially building a cycleway on which pedestrians are allowed. But reducing the land take and construction cost makes it much easier to justify it in an area of lower population density.

I'm quite excited about the developments from Sustrans' recent National Cycle Network review, which include looking into creating 'quietways' on rural roads. There's a lot we could do to tame motor traffic on rural roads where segregation would likely be disproportionate.

(Occasionally I wonder about writing a rural cycling infrastructure blog, but there's never enough hours in the day...)

Bmblbzzz wrote:

mjr wrote:

The utility cyclist wrote:The fact that despite 74% of all travellers not going by bike and Dutch cycle lanes are congested at times proves that segregated facilities are not the best solution in some places.
Instead of calling people who question whether segregated infra is the solution "misguided" and throwing in "anti-infra hobby horse", why not engage with people to find out why they think segregated is not the way forward/best solution for some people on bikes and/or in some areas?

Because we already know that! No-one is saying separate facilities are the best way for everyone everywhere! You're arguing against something completely imaginary!

I'm not so sure it's imaginary. Campaigners in UK do say they want segregated facilities on all roads. I think there's a misunderstanding, a difference of interpretation, of what that means. Campaigners for cycling in UK tend to be city-based. As a utility cyclist in an urban area you tend to do a lot of riding on busy roads - because those are where things are (shops, offices, schools, etc), and because they're the most direct routes between places and because even minor roads are often busy (and are slower to ride on because you have to give way so often, cluttered with badly parked cars, etc). This leads campaign groups to say we need segregated facilities on all roads. Whereas leisure riders hear this and think of the country lanes they typically like to ride on, whether for speed or ambling, and wonder how you could put any sort of kerb etc in that space. They also don't like the idea of changing the rural appearance for something that looks more urban. And the roadies want to be in the traffic for speed reasons. This difference of focus between campaigners and others leads to some neglect of the other's interpretation.

Who says that they want segregated infrastructure on all roads? I doubt anyone does and few if any groups campaign for even protected or separate infrastructure on all roads.

Also, I'm in a semi rural area so maybe you're confusing me with someone else?