Cycling UK Forum

Some great looking cycling infrastructure in these pictures:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/bike-blog/gallery/2019/jun/17/build-it-and-they-will-bike-the-second-bicycle-architecture-biennale-in-pictures

The devil is often in the detail with cycling infrastructure, so I hope they're as good to ride as they look.

Not really surprising that this topic has come up:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... missioners

Speaking for myself, I hardly ever use a painted cycle lane, for the simple reason that none of the roads that I regularly cycle on, has one. But I do venture onto shared paths which do not run alongside roads, e.g. bridle paths. With care and always giving way to walkers - especially the elderly, those with small children or dogs.

Should we be painting out a lot of the stupider 'infrastructure'? Replaced with what?

Here's an article in which Boardman and others charged with improving transport infrastructure to include cycling, bemoan the useless nature of the supposed infrastructure improvements of painting white lines in gutters for cyclists.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... missioners

My own view is similar: what's needed is heavy-duty policing of motoring crime so that the existing and very adequate cycling infrastructure known as "the roads" are felt to be safe and actually are safe for the cyclists (and pedestrians; and horse riders; and even the cats, dogs and hedgehogs crossing them).

In contrast, consider these:

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/bike ... n-pictures

Cycling infrastructure making the bicycle the primary and perhaps only transport mode allowed. Is that a good way forward? It seems a bit like making the motorist king....

And here is yet another article noting the huge inertia of thinking concerning improvements to cycling infrastructure:

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... ycle-route

Many are mad revolutionaries when it comes to allowing vast changes such as having an Amazon or Samsung spy in their house, noting their every move then puppeting them into buying more dross. Or letting some Russian bots advise on Brexit voting. But change the "rights" of motorists to maim & kill at leisure!? Never!! Suddenly there is a reversion to "reactionary bigot" mode.

Cuh!

Cugel

PS All on-line Guardian articles - they've gone a bit mad-on-cycling recently.

There's a very simple answer police the roads and take cycling seriously,when that happens more people will cycle and less will drive their car 500m to the local shop.
PS, writing to Chris Grayling is like talking to the wall the man doesn't give a toss for cycling like all the transport secs before him.

The government has wasted hundreds of millions of pounds painting pointless white lines on busy roads and calling them cycle lanes, according to Britain’s cycling and walking commissioners.
In a letter to the transport secretary, Chris Grayling, the commissioners – including the Olympic champions Chris Boardman (Greater Manchester), Dame Sarah Storey (Sheffield City region) and Will Norman (London) – say painted cycle lanes are a “gesture” and do nothing to make people feel safer on a bike. Recent studies have shown they can actually make people less safe, they argue.

Reported here.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jun/17/painted-bike-lanes-waste-money-cycling-commissioners

The letter repeats all the cogent arguments in favour of making good cycling provision that we all agree with and have heard so many times over the years in report after report.
No doubt Grayling will be replaced soon, but his successor will fail too, to listen to this good sense..
These pitiful cycle lanes are a way of pretending to do something without actually tackling the real problem. I am afraid that this letter will have a little effect as all previous attempts.

I see that since I started typing others have posted about this.

I'm not sure it's worth wasting even more money painting them out. Maybe just burn off the bike symbols and leave the rest to fade.

They should be replaced with protected cycleways of at least 2.5m width (3.5m if bidirectional with priority crossings each end). Where that would leave less than two car widths for the carriageway and single-car-with-passing-places fails modelling, it should become a 20mph-motor-limit bicycle street.

reohn2 wrote:There's a very simple answer police the roads and take cycling seriously,when that happens more people will cycle and less will drive their cat 500m to the local shop.
PS, writing to Chris Grayling is like talking to the wall the man doesn't give a toss for cycling like all hpthe transport specs before him.

Talking to a car door, more like!

Policing is necessary but not enough alone. Some barrier road designs need changing. http://crapwalthamforest.blogspot.com/2 ... ing-8.html https://arstechnica.com/cars/2019/05/bi ... udy-shows/

Several threads have been combined by moderators (not just me!).

The same articles were quoted in multiple threads.

The topics are partly in contrst, as one is about cycling specific infrastructure, and another is about cycle lanes being a waste of money, but, as they were quoted together, it seemed simpler than copying a couple of posts to make two threads out of 4, instead of 1 out of 4.

Vorpal wrote:Several threads have been combined by moderators (not just me!).

Amalgamation was obviously necessary.

I would like to add that the letter, besides damning cycle lanes, made other, arguably more important points.

The signatories pointed out the need for national standards for cycle facilities.

They argue that the economic models used by the Treasury to decide whether to fund motorways or cycle facilities do not take into account the real costs of motoring or the benefits of cycling. They say the DoT should change its appraisal methods.

They also suggest that revenue from fixed penalty notices should be put into improving road safety. I would like to see it going into traffic policing.

Reading the comments in the last of Cugel's links one comment summed the UK regarding cycling "the UK is a backward country",and IMO it's not just regarding cycling much other backwardness stems from the same attitude.

Mike Sales wrote:

Vorpal wrote:Several threads have been combined by moderators (not just me!).

Amalgamation was obviously necessary.

I would like to add that the letter, besides damning cycle lanes, made other, arguably more important points.

The signatories pointed out the need for national standards for cycle facilities.

They argue that the economic models used by the Treasury to decide whether to fund motorways or cycle facilities do not take into account the real costs of motoring or the benefits of cycling. They say the DoT should change its appraisal methods.

When you're playing against someone with a loaded deck you don't stand much chance of winning other than the odd crumb to keep you at the table.
Who partially funds CUK?

Personally my view is that all transport funding should be allocated based on a cost vs benefit method. The highest wins the money but with a northern bias to try and reduce North - South development gap.

I.believe sir Chris Boardman said that the recent Manchester spend gives a 5 times better cost vs benefit ratio compared to a single roundabout that cost similar amounts. Select on that and I believe the 30% of all journeys today are less than a mile might be start to switch to other means of transportation. Up to a mile walking or cycling should take over.

Traffic enforcement? Not going to happen if that is at the expense of reducing / investigating crime against due person or property. Motoring crime is bottom of the heap on funding and always will.

A positive would be add a requirement for all transportation projects to have a high priority design component aimed at safer cycling and walking. Indeed code out minimum requirements that must be met. AIUI the painted cycle routes was about increasing local cycle route miles to meet targets. Nothing to do with need or practicality.

Round here they have red cycle lanes marked up but only on the side junctions on one of the main routes or of the city. Cars coming out of side roads see cyclists but see the outside of these red cycle lanes as the junction line. So as you approach these side roads and see a car reaching it you have to move out further into the centre of the road because you don't know the car will stop at the real junction line. Stupid design of junctions!

Vorpal wrote:Several threads have been combined by moderators (not just me!).

The same articles were quoted in multiple threads.

The topics are partly in contrst, as one is about cycling specific infrastructure, and another is about cycle lanes being a waste of money, but, as they were quoted together, it seemed simpler than copying a couple of posts to make two threads out of 4, instead of 1 out of 4.

Hello Vorpal,

I'm sorry, but I do NOT agree with the merging in of the thread started by Cotswolds. That was originally on an entirely different topic, the words (bike lanes are a waste of money) were added in gratuitously (and incorrectly).

Please separate out the threads again. Thanks.

661-Pete wrote:Not really surprising that this topic has come up:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... missioners

An interesting footnote to this is piece is that at the moment it is the very first article in the online home page - equivalent to being front page news (don't know if it achieved the same status in the printed edition).

661-Pete wrote:

Vorpal wrote:Several threads have been combined by moderators (not just me!).

The same articles were quoted in multiple threads.

The topics are partly in contrst, as one is about cycling specific infrastructure, and another is about cycle lanes being a waste of money, but, as they were quoted together, it seemed simpler than copying a couple of posts to make two threads out of 4, instead of 1 out of 4.

Hello Vorpal,

I'm sorry, but I do NOT agree with the merging in of the thread started by Cotswolds. That was originally on an entirely different topic, the words (bike lanes are a waste of money) were added in gratuitously (and incorrectly).

Please separate out the threads again. Thanks.

I'm inclined to think they're two sides of the same coin: "our cheap cycle facilities are rubbish" and "look how well it can be done", which could merit separate threads. I found the pictures interesting and inspirational and I thought others might, but there's probably not much to say about them, so I'm not bothered by the merging.

I thought it was notable that no British cycle facility got in to the collection.